Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers

[Elise Gerich <epg () merit edu>]

The organizations that export/import routes via the 
route servers may find:

1) the routers have fewer configured peers therefore resulting
in less load on the routers
2) the route servers have route flap dampening implemented thereby
insulating the peer from a high number of routing updates
3) the route servers do the routing computations which results
in freeing significant amounts of processing time on the peer
routers
4) a reduction in the time and energy (people resources) needed to
establish new peering relationships

            --Elise

> Ali Marashi writes:
>
>
> I had a few questions to direct to the group at large that I believe are 
> of a "network operational" nature.
>
> (1) I have heard that Sprint and MCI currently require an organization to
> peer with them at a minimum of three exchange points, where one must be on
> a different coast.  I have been unable to confirm this directly from the
> sources yet.  Would anyone care to share what knowledge they have on the
> subject?  Are any other large providers (e.g., ANS) adhering to similar
> policies?  As Internet traffic increases across the large backbones, could
> this be a trend that continues with other providers?
>
> (2) Could anyone share opinions/facts regarding why organizations may or 
> may not exchange routes via the Route Servers rather than direct peering 
> relationships at the NAPs?
>
> Thank you for any information/enlightenment.
> Ali....
>
> +----------------------------------------+
> | Ali Marashi                            |
> | interGlobe Networks, Inc.              |
> | phone: 206.623.2222  fax: 206.623.0885 |
> | http://www.interglobe.com              |
> +----------------------------------------+