Sorry all for emaling to Nanog inadvertently. I sent a copuole of nonrelevant posts
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:46 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > >> I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for >> wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think >> avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility >> of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service. >> > > Plenty of eyeball networks will announce prefixes differently via a > bilateral session vs a route server session vs DFZ, then come yelling > because traffic isn't going the way they expected it to. There can be times > that the administrative overhead of dealing with those folks far outweighs > any financial or performance benefits. > > Route servers are generally useful, but can be a royal pain in the ass > too, depending on how they're used. > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:35 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 11/7/24 21:42, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> i used to resist. my instinct is that the data plane and the control >> plane should be congruent or you can have hard to debug issues[0]. >> but, as i have gotten older and lazier, and as you say, route servers >> have gotten quite reliable, i have come over to the route server side. >> >> >> I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for >> wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think >> avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility >> of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service. >> >> Mark. >> >
