Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

[Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>]

Mark Tinka wrote on 07/11/2024 20:33:
> 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.

gonna disagree on this one. Route servers are aimed at leaf networks, 
networks with simple routing policies, and arguably also networks with 
complex routing requirements, but where the RS provides reachability to 
ASNs which they're not picking up elsewhere. They can cause a good deal 
heartache for networks which have complex policy requirements and in 
situations where there's already dense interconnection between the ASNs 
visible on the RS. Several of the larger content networks don't want to 
use RS's, and they have good technical reasons for not wanting to do so.

The flip side of this is that unless you're prepared to implement the 
sort of routing security configuration that route servers typically 
implement these days, or to trust that the other party has done this, 
then bilateral peering sessions will open you up to wide range of 
routing security problems. I'd be fairly hesitant to implement bilateral 
peering sessions as a general rule, except with networks that are large 
enough that they've made the effort to implement good quality filtering 
at their ixp presence.

Nick