From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
To: Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00
 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)
Thread-Index: AQHQX2KQloKaLrJPrEOg21NQaaXf050ez1mAgAPLxgCAAAwmDQ==
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:51 +0000
Message-ID: <6932E9FA-3658-4198-8614-DD952B0FC7FB@domino.org>
References: <7BDA4F61-AF6C-4B56-AFC8-D5CC2B9E7A96@cisco.com>
 <55069AAF.2050801@exa-networks.co.uk>,
 <6BBC5C04-0D9A-4B6C-ADC3-AC4D6A37E193@de-cix.net>
In-Reply-To: <6BBC5C04-0D9A-4B6C-ADC3-AC4D6A37E193@de-cix.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Mar 2015 19:37:51.4154 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 398f3eb4-3394-48e7-885c-de1ab2a9cf2e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR03MB589
X-OriginatorOrg: domino.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2HQKaAG1w7GYMgsmMZDSUBZahw8>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>,
 "idr-bounces@ietf.org" <idr-bounces@ietf.org>,
 David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00
 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>,
 <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>,
 <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:39:48 -0000


> On 18 Mar 2015, at 18:54, Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Thomas
>=20
>> On 16 Mar 2015, at 09:56, Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.u=
k> wrote:
>>=20
>> Many networks will not use Route Servers due to this problem which did
>> hit quite a few operators over the years on large internet exchanges.
>> This is a reason why some large operators refuse to peer with smaller
>> ones via RS.
>=20
> I think this is not correct anymore:
> http://net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de/~prichter/imc238-richterA.pdf
>=20
> Nearly all customers at DE-CIX Frankfurt use the route servers.
>=20
> I think many things happened in the past to make sure route servers run s=
table and reliable. With our proposal we are pushing hard in this direction=
. Especially, for large IXPs such as DE-CIX, AMS-IX, Linx or Netnod setting=
 up bilateral peerings does not scale anymore (who wants to maintain 500+ B=
GP sessions?). Route servers are the only solution to keep the setup proces=
s manageable (from my point of view).
>=20


Thomas K - sorry but it is simple to manage, scales perfectly well and much=
 more preferable. (And probably off topic here)=20

Regards,
Neil=20



> Best regards,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr