|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <CAE_ug143GsMN3+CNz=AgTr+xjGWY2CrmXYW=jf36JQ3AAnukFw@mail.gmail.com> From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:24:12 -0400 To: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> wrote: > Question: What is the preferred practice for separating peering and transit > circuits? > > 1. Terminate peering and transit on separate routers. > 2. Terminate peering and transit circuits in separate VRFs. > 3. QoS/QPPB ( > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog42/presentations/DavidSmith-PeeringPolicyEnforcement.pdf > ) > 4. Don't worry about peers stealing transit. > 5. What is peering? > > Your comments are appreciated. If you have a small number of peers, a separate router carrying a partial table works really well. -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |