Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-route-server-rpki-light-00.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

[ first, i do not use route serves (because of the data/control non-
  congruence), so my opinion here is worth even less than it normally
  is. ]

> An ixp route-server is not a transit provider, all of the nexthops
> exposed are in fact peers. So no I do not consider such a  device an
> "upstream" it exists to service the policy needs of the peers on the
> fabric  rather than that of the exchange operator.

to repeat my previous; those policy needs might vary across ix members.
some may want the ix to enforce origin validation for them, some may
not.  those exchanges which offer validation today offer the choice.  i
think that is the right thing; let the member make the choice at set-up
with the route server.

> No, I setup bilateral peering arrangements because they actually load
> balance to my multiple ports, because the loci of control is
> unambiguous, because it facilitates greatly build per session prefix
> filters, and because they converge the control and forwarding path,
> which has a tendency to fail much more gracefully in the face of l2
> failures in distributed exchange fabric designs then does the
> route-server.

there's a draft for that :)

randy