Re: Peering is a lot of work.

[Warren Williams <wkwilli () PacBell COM>]

> On Oct 29, 15:10, Justin W. Newton wrote:
> > One can point default at someone whether or not they are peering with the
> > person.  I am somewhat confused by the thought that people believe that
> > they need to be peering with someone to have that person point default at
> > them.  I could (I don't, but I could), point default at /anyone/ on the
> > same switch fabric as me, whether they are peering with me or not.  Why do
> > people continue to tie these 2 issues together?
>
> At the PacBell Nap for instance, you *couldn't* just point default at anyone on
> the same switch fabric -- because you need to set up a peering (mapping) within
> the switching fabric first, before you do any route peering. Until this happens
> there would be no unwanted traffic.

This came up at NANOG, and, yes, while with ATM the PVCs bring the automatic
ability of shielding one from unwanted traffic from a "non-peer", a provider
**could** point default at one of his peers. There is nothing that can be
done at the L2 level. We could, again as mentioned at NANOG, bring down the
PVC upon the request of only one of the peers, ending the default situation,
but this is reactive, and requires that the default scenario still be
detected...


Kind regards,
Warren

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