Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Wed, 15 March 2017 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08401317E5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPFJ_jIwATDP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [195.30.115.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E87F5131830 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A207A6028E for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:26:56 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629226010D; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:26:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 544C617924; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:26:56 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:26:56 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170315212656.GD2367@Space.Net>
References: <CA+b+ERmLDNzF=TofW=w1OwUzeLGUc-3muMckHTH6Rs=c8rc5bQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170314223333.bw3caxfn34y6zlb7@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ERmMOyqb8HFtNXyDr8e+MNxA7EWmJFukUNgSjAU+69f5CA@mail.gmail.com> <20170314225855.GN12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERkt6MJUPR-4WX0LYZ9CG1FoNX-g4=hnqFB9iQy8WfKOww@mail.gmail.com> <20170315000326.GO12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERmWUL-pVwjW8Vq+Vz8UzYDpcVBZxxhtM6WFqhmG+r35WA@mail.gmail.com> <58C95A05.3030107@foobar.org> <20170315195050.GT12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERn-uya3kB-FgXvfFjdK-hPmj-W-mv_T+TnbEAfkzR8Hfg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERn-uya3kB-FgXvfFjdK-hPmj-W-mv_T+TnbEAfkzR8Hfg@mail.gmail.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBOvwuys-28NyAQ1Ulotc4td3O0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Mar 2017 21:27:05 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:09:11PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > - IXPs tend to get a rather entertaining mish-mash of equipment... and
> thus bugs.
> +
> > Please enlighten yourself what people use "as peering router" today :-)
> 
> While this is GROW question ... perhaps it would be very helpful to get
> some more real data on what type of routers customers of the IX use to peer
> within IX ? Why such equipment is considered at best as 2nd class citizen ?

"What people can afford, and which can barely keep up with the demand".

So, you'll still find Cisco Sup720 or Juniper MX80 as peering routers -
reliable workhorses as far as forwarding capacity is concerned, but CPU 
starved (= keep the number of BGP sessions down if you want any
semblance of stability), and unfortunately also with centralized BFD
(at least on the Cisco).


> For my BB IX peerings I would in fact put the best routers to peer outside
> of my network on the edge - not just some junk or homebrew bgp/igp.

If you keep buying "best of breed" boxes every 3 years, while the 
competition keeps chugging along with half the CAPEX needed, your
customers will wander over, and you'll have to reconsider.

For a "smallish" ISP over here, a "fat pipe" to an IXP is 10Gbit/s or
maybe 20 Gbit/s - so if you need to by a US$ 50k router for that,
every 3 years, it does quite add to the peering costs.

We typically have budget to forklift IXP routers every 8-10 years...
bandwidth growth isn't that fast anymore, so "nice and shiny" today
will be "old and crappy" in 6 years, but as long as it keeps working,
it will be kept around.


It's not like "peering routers are treated second-class", more like
"the market expects that this all costs nothing" - so *inside* the
networks, "proper routers" get replaced by "dumb and fast" P-routers
with little/no BGP, to save even more CAPEX.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279