On Friday 21 October 2005 12:36, Guido Sohne wrote:
> 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.

That's a little dangerous! That means all ISP's are in the 
same AS. More than likely, as the days go by, there will 
be filtering issues as well as BGP policy issues, since a 
route reflector approach essentially makes all ISP's one 
ISP.

This is the model the KIXP (.ke) took, and have since been 
trying to rectify the situation. Forget scaling, this is 
just not the way to do it.

I worked with some .gh folk on this, and thought they'd be 
taking the more typical approach.

> The full mesh approach will work for the cases where
> you have operators who know exactly what they are
> doing.

Well, the requirements in the initial stages of the 
exchange point are not entirely heavy that you need a 
degree in the thing :), but I know folk in .gh who are 
capable of running BGP at a basic level.

Peering with each other is like peering with a single 
router, except that you are repeating the configuration 
for different peers, and have more long term flexibility.

> But it also invites undue meddling via industry 
> politics.

Please elaborate, not sure I understand what you mean 
here.

> I think it is a good idea to make it peer by 
> default, not the other way around.

This is another issue that has raised a lot of debate. 
Should peering be mandatory, or not? At one of the 
workshops we did for .bw (their BINX is now up and 
running), one of the ISP's refused to peer with the 
other, and as much as they were being urged to by their 
ISPA, the last time I checked they hadn't reconsidered.

Different networks will peer for different reasons. To be 
free and fair, forcing an ISP to peer with another isn't 
going help the IXP's cause.

Mark.

Attachment: pgpJzLeeCD5Jf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
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.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to