On Oct 20, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Please clarify here... are you using a route reflector,
or route server model. Route reflector is iBGP, while
route server is eBGP.
Route reflector. I've confirmed it with one of the
ISPs.
But, as we have urged at the AfNOG workshops, the method
that works best with regard to transfer and
implementation if knowledge, as well as providing
flexibility in exchange peering options, is the full
mesh approach.
The full mesh approach will work for the cases where you
have operators who know exactly what they are doing. But
it also invites undue meddling via industry politics. I
think it is a good idea to make it peer by default, not
the other way around.
This is great! 12 ISP's is a very good start.
It turns out that my estimate was exaggerated! Right now
there are five. Two more are waiting for their links to become
operational. That will make seven. When the peering
point for the major ISPs gets connected to the IX, also
expected by the end of the month, that will jump
to ten. It's seven for sure and probably ten soon.
So it's an exaggeration that's pretty close to the mark :-)
We should be able see how much traffic is being
exchanged. I don't have access to that information
now. This is some of the historical data that I want
to have access to. I hope they are measuring!
Monitoring the switch should give you a pretty accurate
figure on how much traffic the exchange is generating.
Am not an ISP, so I have no hardware (or software, or
administrative, or any form of access :-) in there.
-- G.
_______________________________________________
LUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug
%LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
