North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
- From: Dave Siegel
- Date: Tue Sep 26 22:53:03 1995
> There's two kinds of traffic that Alternet can provide to SmallGuy:
[ a) deleted...standard peering ]
> b) transit peering, meaning Alternet announces to SmallGuy all routes
> that SmallGuy is paying to get (Alternet's plus everyone else's
> presumably, though transit-to-some-but-not-al ASes can also be done, and
> where Alternet propagates all of SmallGuys route announcements to the
> ASes SmallGuy buys access to.
>
> [Buying access to some ASes but not the whole Internet as seen by
> Alternet can be hard since some of these ASes may not be directly
> connected to Alternet, in which case SmallGuy must also pay for transit
> to the ASes between Alternet and the ones he desires. In practice
> SmallGuy will buy transit to the whole Internet as heard of by
> Alternet.]
Unfortunately, this is not particular feasible in any great amount (at least
on a Cisco). The differnet filter-lists needed for each peering session would
make your configuration downright un-wieldy after a few such arrangements.
I starting having to deal with three filter-lists to update on the mae-east
net99 router for one similar project, and each time I added a new peer, all
three of them had to be updated a little differently. Had it gotten any worse,
I would have had to build some script to automatically update my filter-lists
for me.
Even if it was easy, I really wouldn't want to wade through the configuration
file when done. They are getting bad enough already.
Dave
--
Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.
(520)318-0696 Systems Consultant -- Unix, LANs, WANs, Cisco
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/ for an ISP."
|
