Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)

[Derek Elder <djelder () accessus net>]

Seconded.

| Derek Elder         http://www.accessus.net             V.P., CIO |
| djelder () accessus net     accessU.S., Inc.   888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |
| "The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,      |
| which failed to start because of the following error: The         |
| operation completed successfully" -- Windows NT Server v3.51      |


On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Robert Laughlin wrote:

> I vote for Avi description of the topic.
>
> Robert
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DataXchange                sales:  800-863-1550            http://www.dx.net
>        Network Operations Center:  703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, R. Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> > > At 9:37 AM 11/26/96, Avi Freedman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Route reflecting sounds like a good topic - could I interest any of you
> > > > in presenting on it?
> > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Susan R. Harris, Ph.D.         Merit Network, Inc.         srh () merit edu
> > >
> > > I would be willing to present, though as I said I think a separate meeting
> > > to see what people really want is needed.
> > >
> > > I think the issues are:
> > >
> > > o (Briefly) The politics and technology of peering
> > > o Easier peering between multiple parties: MLPA
> > > o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between
> > >   multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time
> > >   involved in the setup?
> > > o Why might the RA not be the best tool - or why might it be?
> > > o Possible goal:
> > >   o Participants sign a contract expressing a desire to peer with anyone
> > >     else signing the contract (not exclusively) through a route-reflecting
> > >     box.
> > >   o You can only offer routes for you and "your customers" via this.  No
> > >     partial transit to specific people can be offered.
> > >   o Boxes at each interesting exchange point that people can then peer with
> > >     to effect the agreement.  One or two Cisco 2501s would work fine, but
> > >     RA-type boxes which can "hide" their ASs in the middle might be
> > >     interesting as well (Peter Lothberg arguments about BGP not being
> > >     designed to 'work that way' possibly put aside).
> > >   o Filtering:
> > >     o Box-side filtering to enforce sanity?
> > > o Concerns
> > >   o Who's going to run the thing?
> > >   o Network stability?
> > >   o What happens to control bad neighbors?
> > >
> > > Or, perhaps a separate mailing list is needed in the interim to allow
> > > people to discuss the issue without boring uninterested members of
> > > the nanog list...
> >
> > While your outline sounds great wrt its chosen topic, the topic doesn't
> > sound like what I consider to be route-reflecting -- specifically, route
> > reflection in (i)BGP.  Your outline sounds more like "politics and
> > operational issues surrounding peering and route-serving at a NAP."  Can
> > someone clarify which of the two topics is the burning topic that people
> > would like presented?
> >
> > Note that both topics may be burning issues and worthy of a presentation at
> > the next NANOG...
> >
> > thanks,
> > eric
> >
> > ----
> > R. Eric Bennett <reb () ieng com>       |   Internet Engineering Group
> > 313-669-8800 (v) 313-669-8661 (f)    |   122 S. Main, Suite 280
> > http://www.ieng.com/                 |   Ann Arbor, MI 48104
> > "Radical Rodent: Superdynamic Rodent of Tomorrow"
> >                 -- http://home.earthlink.net/~krhughes/Rat.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -