[187248] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Mon Jan 25 09:31:19 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
Robert Glover <robertg@garlic.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:31:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an
> allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which
> session. Its gone about very properly.
And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs
across a point-to-point link?
>
> In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to
> properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from
> the start.
My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its
configuration, I would.
I realize some commands make a router more secure than them being absent
(and vice versa), while some commands make a router perform better than
them being absent (and vice versa).
My point - just because a feature is there, does not mean you have to
use it.
>
> And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when
> and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding
> internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server?
Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as
centralized networking. But that's just me.
>
> Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is
> continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering?
Can't speak for others, just myself.
Mark.