Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers

[salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)]

> To: NANOG <nanog () merit edu>
> Subject: Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers 
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:49:02 -0400
> From: Enke Chen <enke () mci net>
>       [...]
> Regarding the RS (I have many friends there, and they have done many 
> good work), let me echo the fundamental issues that Steve Heimlich 
> has pointed out, would you rather have your peering policy enforced by 
> yourself or by a third party?  Would you rather develop a dependency
> on a third party (which may not be there a few years down the road)
> to deliver the critical service or depend on yourself? 

This sounds like an argument for an NSP to build their own routers.

(Oh,I forgot, that has already been tried...)

More seriously, I would like to think that the analysis performed by
the NSPs is a bit more detailed.  Perhaps the challenges include:

o       the routing arbiter not having a long-term track record as a vendor
        against which to compare internal efforts, or as you mention
        an uncertain future;

o       the route servers don't save an NSP all that much work;

o       the NSPs haven't bothered to do the analysis; or

o       ...

-tjs


-tjs