Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:

> No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an
> allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which
> session. Its gone about very properly.

And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs
across a point-to-point link?


> In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to
> properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from
> the start.

My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its
configuration, I would.

I realize some commands make a router more secure than them being absent
(and vice versa), while some commands make a router perform better than
them being absent (and vice versa).

My point - just because a feature is there, does not mean you have to
use it.


> And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when
> and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding
> internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server?

Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as
centralized networking. But that's just me.


> Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is
> continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering?

Can't speak for others, just myself.

Mark.