nanog mailing list archives
Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:43:11 -0500
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:44 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:I have to disagree with you. If it appears in a traceroute to somewhere else, I'd like to be able to ping and traceroute directly to it. When I can't, that impairs my ability to troubleshoot the all too common can't-get-there-from-here problems. The more you hide the infrastructure, the more intractable problems become for your customers. The IXP LAN should be reachable from every device on the ASes which connect to it, not just the immediate router.We disagree. Plus, you really can't type "ping" on the router connected to the IXP?
Not when I'm the downstream customer, no. It's jolly good that *you* can test, but before the rest of us can get through the layers of support which insulate you, we have to be able to convincingly test too.
As I know 100% of ISPs (to at least one decimal place) cannot make such a guarantee, then doing so puts the IXP and all other members - whether peers of yours or not - at risk. Putting others at risk because you are lazy or because it makes your life easier is .. I believe I called it bad manners before.
That makes no sense. The IXP is at no more or less risk from your customers than any other connection you have for Internet carriage. Risk which you are responsible for managing either way.
I said in an earlier post that if you carry a prefix I own, did not announce to you, and make it very clear I specifically do not want you to carry, I will ask you to stop or face possible disconnection. [...] That's not your prefix, you were not given it and told not to carry it, so Do Not Carry It.
Well yes, of course. If you participate in an IXP you follow the rules of the IXP. I respectfully question the wisdom of such a rule and the IXPs I deal with only ask that you not announce the IXP prefix externally. But it's not OK to unilaterally break the IXP's rules, however poorly conceived. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes, (continued)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Eric A Louie (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Eric A Louie (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Christopher Morrow (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Christopher Morrow (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Eric A Louie (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Michael Hallgren (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Mark Tinka (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes William Herrin (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 15)
- RE: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Siegel, David (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes William Herrin (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Florian Weimer (Jan 18)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Leo Bicknell (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Dobbins, Roland (Jan 14)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Leo Bicknell (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Dobbins, Roland (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Leo Bicknell (Jan 15)
- Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes Dobbins, Roland (Jan 15)