Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

[Mike Tindor <mtindor () gmail com>]

Sorry all for emaling to Nanog inadvertently.   I sent a copuole of
nonrelevant posts

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:46 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> > I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for
> > wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think
> > avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility
> > of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service.
>
> Plenty of eyeball networks will announce prefixes differently via a
> bilateral session vs a route server session vs DFZ, then come yelling
> because traffic isn't going the way they expected it to. There can be times
> that the administrative overhead of dealing with those folks far outweighs
> any financial or performance benefits.
>
> Route servers are generally useful, but can be a royal pain in the ass
> too, depending on how they're used.
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:35 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
>
> > On 11/7/24 21:42, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > i used to resist.  my instinct is that the data plane and the control
> > plane should be congruent or you can have hard to debug issues[0].
> > but, as i have gotten older and lazier, and as you say, route servers
> > have gotten quite reliable, i have come over to the route server side.
> >
> >
> > I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for
> > wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think
> > avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility
> > of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service.
> >
> > Mark.