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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Job !

So this means that every third or second customer in first two IXes
respectively connect to exchange with at least two edge routers or it could
be the same CE router with two interfaces :).

Now this also means that each such edge router is connecting to both
independent route servers.

Based on the above just making sure that those two route servers pick paths
with different next hop as best may already address the problem to improve
robustness with just putting only a negligible additional load on the
customer edge keeping current hardware and software as is.

Kind regards,
Robert.


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 22:58, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Like Job observed for some customers peering to/via IX is just an
>> additional optimization hence indeed some may not always put most expensive
>> and latest gear there.
>>
>> Actually after this discussion I am quite curious how many nets on the
>> routes servers really have more then one bgp path. If not much then this
>> entire effort here may not be practically useful.
>>
>
> Did some small crude sampling by asking around:
>
> AMS-IX RS indicated that one out of three routes have an alternative path
> DE-CIX RS 1 out of 2 routes have an alternative path
> INEX RS seemed to have virtually no alternative paths for the routes
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>