[33325] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L. Golding)
Mon Jan 8 23:22:50 2001
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:16:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Daniel L. Golding" <dan@netrail.net>
To: Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com>
Cc: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene@cisco.com>, deen@slt.lk,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101081832180.23456-100000@kitty.kotovnik.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101082312430.22774-100000@courier.netrail.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
There are a number of boxes that can do this, or are in beta. It would be
a horrific mistake to base an exchange point of any size around one of
them. Talk about difficulty troubleshooting, not to mention managing
the exchange point. Get a Foundry BigIron 4000 or a Riverstone
SSR. Exchange point in a box, so to say. The Riverstone can support the
inverse-mux application nicely, on it's own, as can a Foundry, when
combined with a Tiara box.
Daniel Golding NetRail,Inc.
"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
>
>
> There's another option for IXP architecture, virtual routers over a
> scalable fabric. This is the only approach which combines capacity of
> inverse-multiplexed parallel L1 point-to-point links and flexibility of
> L2/L3 shared-media IXPs. The box which can do that is in field trials
> (though i'm not sure the current release of software supports that
> functionality).
>
> --vadim
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> >
> > Randy;
> >
> > > > BGP Route Reflector IXPs need a AS number. I'll send you a URL with a
> > > > whitepaper. The BGP Route Reflector IXPs have proved to offer a low entry
> > > > cost for ISPs (for those places that do not have the deep pockets to get
> > > > big routers).
> > >
> > > except that big routers are not needed for small-isp exchanges. remember,
> > > an isp participating in such an exchange has only to add the prefixes of
> > > their local peers to their routing, typically a dozen or so. there are very
> > > successful layer-two exchanges where the peers use what we think of as cpe
> > > routers, e.g. cisco 2501s. and what's nice is that this is on the right
> > > path to exchange growth.
> > >
> > > l3 exchange ponints are a labor suck and are fragile.
> >
> > Maybe. However, l2 is for telco.
> >
> > l2 exchange ponints are a labor suck and are fragile.
> >
> > The right path is l1, though, then, there is less reason to have
> > exchange points.
> >
> > It will be more obvious as the peering speed between two ISPs exceeds
> > that of a single physical interface.
> >
> > Masataka Ohta
> >
>
>
