[137669] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Thu Feb 17 21:40:17 2011
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:40:04 +0800
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110218023122.GA92772@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>,
"Yaoqing\(Joey\) Liu" <joey.liuyq@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned
>> addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above).
>> Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we
>> sometimes have to chase down people that announce it.
>
> I've had to deal with exchanges like this in the past, and frankly
> they have always been a pain for the support organization.
>
> You see, customers use tools like mtr or Visual Traceroute that do
> a traceroute and then continuously ping each hop. Many of these
> customers don't have a default route, or default to their _other_
> provider. These tools end up showing 100% loss at the exchange,
> as they get the traceroute response and then can't ping it.
>
> They then open a ticket, and your support organization has to explain
> to them how all of this works and why it isn't the real cause of
> their problem.
<aol>
> My preference is that the exchange get an ASN, peer with everyone
> (e.g. from the route server) and announce the exchange prefix.
i do not like route servers or peering with strange things.
treat the exchange as an internal route and announce it within your
net and to your customer cone.
randy
