http://xkcd.com/927/
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sebastian Spies <s+mailinglisten.na...@sloc.de> wrote: > sorry, for the double post. dmarc fuckup... > > Hey there, > > considering the state of this discussion, BIRD seems to be the only > scalable solution to be used as a route server at IXPs. I have built a > large code base around BGP for the hoofprints project [1] and BRITE [2] > and would enjoy building another state-of-the-art open-source > route-server implementation for IXPs. Would you be so kind to send me > your feedback on this idea? Do you think, it makes sense to pursue such > a project or is it not relevant enough for you? > > Best regards, > Sebastian > > 1: https://github.com/sspies8684/hoofprints/ > 2: https://brite.antd.nist.gov/statics/about > > Am 25.04.2015 um 22:06 schrieb Goran Slaviæ: >> Andy, >> >> Believe me when I say: I would never have the idea to think about >> attempting to try to test my ability to generate configurations for this "2 >> route servers/ 2 different programs that run them" solution without the IXP >> Manager :-) >> >> I am familiar with the work INEX has been doing with IXP Manager and >> have for some time attempted to find time from regular SOX operation to >> implement it in our IX. This migration gives me the excellent opportunity >> and arguments to finally allocate time, resources and manpower for >> installation and implementation of IXP Manager as the route server >> configuration generator at SOX. >> >> Regards >> G.Slavic >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Davidson [mailto:a...@nosignal.org] >> Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2015 21:34 >> To: Goran Slaviæ >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Euro-IX quagga stable download and implementation >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:16, Goran Slaviæ <gsla...@sox.rs> wrote: >> >>> Considering what I have learned in your posts (and on other places >>> that I have informed myself) I will definitely suggest to SOX management >> to >>> go the way similar to what LINX did (1 Bird + 1 Quagga as route servers) >> for >>> the simple reason that 2 different solution provides more security in >>> context of "new program update->new bugs" problems and incidents and >>> prevents other potential problems. >> Goran - glad to have helped. >> >> One last piece of advice which might be useful - to help to guarantee >> consistency of performance between the two route-servers, you should >> consider a configuration generator so that your route-server configs are in >> sync. The best way to implement this at your exchange is to use IXP >> Manager, maintained by the awesome folks at the Irish exchange point, INEX. >> https://github.com/inex/IXP-Manager >> >> IXP Manager will get you lots of other features as well as good route-server >> hygiene. >> >> There's also a historic perl-script that does this on my personal github. >> Both of these solutions allow you to filter route-server participants based >> on IRR data, which has proved to be a life-saver at all of the exchanges I >> help to operate. Having my horrible historic thing is maybe better than no >> thing at all, but I deliberately won't link to it as you should really use >> IXP Manager. :-) >> >> Andy= >> >>
