[187254] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Mon Jan 25 13:13:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
Robert Glover <robertg@garlic.com>
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:13:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> 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?
Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why one
extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking folk.
> My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its
> configuration, I would.
They sell those routers at your nearest staples, they require zero commands.
>
> Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as
> centralized networking. But that's just me.
>
I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how
centralized your network is built or not?
Joe
