- Previous message: Kevin Loch: "Re: classful routes redux"
- Maybe in reply to: Stephen J. Wilcox: "Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Jeff Aitken (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 20:52:23 EST
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:13:27PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
>For me, plenty, but a four-POP single-state network usually has
>different constraints on "scalable".
Right.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:20:39PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
> I think Pete is saying that as long as you aren't a control-nazi, its a
> good system. :)
My point wasn't that his system doesn't work for him; presumably it
does. My point was that in the context of global peering, what works
for a small network may not (and probably does not) work for someone
the size of, say, Level3.
There are a lot of operational issues that arise if you listen to
MEDs from peers. Apart from the "minor" issues like oscillations,
ratchet-down, and packing inefficiencies, there is the fundamental
problem that you will see potentially significant churn as a result
of changes in your peers' networks. There is also the problem that
there is no single "best" exit point for many large prefixes (e.g.,
if you peer with L3, there is no one "best" place to send traffic
destined for something inside 4/8).
--Jeff
|
|
|