[2757] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Tue Apr 30 18:16:35 1996
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:10:05 EDT."
<199604301410.KAA24243@home.merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:56:50 -0700
From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
> The organizations that export/import routes via the route servers may find:
>
> 1) the routers have fewer configured peers therefore resulting
> in less load on the routers
> 2) the route servers have route flap dampening implemented thereby
> insulating the peer from a high number of routing updates
> 3) the route servers do the routing computations which results
> in freeing significant amounts of processing time on the peer routers
> 4) a reduction in the time and energy (people resources) needed to
> establish new peering relationships
>
> --Elise
I, as an example of an "organization" as described above, have found these
things to be true. The startup transient is high -- all those this-objects
and that-objects. But once it's up and running, adding route relationships
is much easier using the route server than by adding BGP sessions.
Of course, I don't do anything complicated. I understand that Sean and
others have found that they need to do things with their route import and
export rules that the route servers don't have a way of expressing. Perhaps
if I were running a net as large as Sean's I would have his troubles.
