nanog mailing list archives
Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering
From: John Curran <jcurran () bbnplanet com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 09:36:31 -0400
At 8:24 PM 5/11/96, Alan Hannan wrote:
The model scales well, imho. Regionalize your network into pieces. Apply each of the pieces into 1 or more proximities to a NAP|MAE.
Been there, done that.... I've already stated my view on the scalability of such arrangements.
Benefit: I gain low latency transit to most everyone. Drawback: It is technically challenging to create an automate system to regionalize and create appropriate filter lists.
It also complicates every peering relationship and multi-homed customer connection, as you have to worry about both multiple external AS's and your internal routing redistribution from all of these regional routing clouds. If you presume a fairly dense set of interconnects among transit providers, then you're not going to get a significant improvement in latency despite the added complexity. /John - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alan Hannan (May 11)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Michael Dillon (May 11)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Erik Sherk (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Nick Williams (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Dave Siegel (May 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering John Curran (May 12)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Jonathan Heiliger (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Justin W. Newton (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alec H. Peterson (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alec H. Peterson (May 23)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Dave Siegel (May 23)