Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread Robert Raszuk
Yes I mentioned this case in one of the subsequent emails - LG can be per region etc ... You just register not one by many such looking glass server addresses. Some may be independent .. some may be a pool of servers under same IP. Thx On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:59 AM Alejandro Acosta <

Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread heasley
Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:16:55AM +0200, Rayhaan Jaufeerally (IETF): > > Consistent API that serves RIB data > > Initially I tried to avoid defining the exact API of the looking glass by > pointing to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8522, but unfortunately it does > not strictly define the response

Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread Randy Bush
> I do not support adding such an interface to routers or dispersing LG > locations in BGP. maybe dns? rpki? x.400? :) > Place LG info in peeringdb.com & peeringdb's api. +1 randy --- ra...@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks

Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
Rayhaan wanted to know if the peer accepted his route. A looking glass is a different thing in many ways. Several years ago Ignas pointed out that you can use this information to know whether to install a backup on your side for the route. Backup routes in the forwarding hardware are expensive,

Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread Christopher Morrow
(as normal netizen) On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:33 PM Randy Bush wrote: > > Place LG info in peeringdb.com & peeringdb's api. > > +1 > huh,I had thought this was already actually included in peeringdb? Looking Glass URL http://route-server.ip.att.net

Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

2021-04-26 Thread heasley
Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 06:25:44PM -0400, Christopher Morrow: > (as normal netizen) > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:33 PM Randy Bush wrote: > > > > Place LG info in peeringdb.com & peeringdb's api. > > > > +1 > > > > huh,I had thought this was already actually included in peeringdb? > >Looking