On 11/7/24 23:43, Tom Beecher wrote:
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.
Agreed.
I meant outside of policy control (considering most route servers offer
a number of knobs that their neighbors can use to influence remote-end
forwarding), it would seem that getting off the route servers gives the
content/cloud folk an opportunity to screen peering and peering request,
and by extension, a trickle-through effect for cluster maintenance,
rather than a gush.
Mark.
