[163758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multihop eBGP peering or VPN based eBGP peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Mon Jun 17 04:14:51 2013
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:27:11 +0200
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: John van Oppen <jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us>
In-Reply-To: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE76328BE1322@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Perhaps I am missing something from your advantage list, but why would
> you want to exchange routing information with a network to which you
> don't have a connection due to a local failure? I think you are
> attempting to abstract routing from the underlying physical
> infrastructure a bit too much. If the power is out in the carrier pop
> to which you are connected, they don't have a way to give you traffic
> so why would a multi-hop session help.
>
> BGP being down is rarely something that happens on its own, it is
> typically due to something far more physical (router failure, pop
> outage, circuit outage, etc).
any time routing signaling comes from a source to which you can not
directly deliver payload you will be in a load of grief when something
goes wrong. abjure route servers. route reflectors should be in the
data plane, ...
in general, when layer N is not congruent with layer N-1 (and N+1), you
have a recipe for exciting times. and well run ops is not supposed to
be exciting.
randy
