On Monday 31 July 2006 13:54, Hari Kurup wrote: > What fast growth? There has been no growth in the last 3 years > +. With only 5 peers and very rare updates, your suggestion > may be overkill.
Well, one complaint on this thread someone put out was problems with keeping prefix information up to date. My "overkill" suggestion would help alleviate that, but then again, it's just a suggestion. > Infact it could get us in more problems because any peer > announcing bogus routes will ensure that we spend more time > breaking our heads looking for the mishap. I thought we tackled this issue through the lines... better to do this at the border (upstream links) of your network. Besides, does every provider in .ug accept full BGP feeds? Kill it at the exit point and be done with it :). > We would rather leave it the way it is, as long as we can get > the mailing list working and all members subscribed. Fair enough; one of my policies when constructing IP networks is always THINK BIG, and build for it, at the same cost. Designing small networks is easy, but problems come when it's time to scale them for "prime time"; you don't want to bring the network down and redesign it just to support 200Mbps more bandwidth, or even just 50Mbps more traffic. I apply this theory to all areas of the network, including peering. Scaling is a problem that bites many of us in the behind, down the line... Cheers, Mark.
pgp1CHbU1wAuY.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. ---------------------------------------
