> On Jan 30, 2019, at 17:32 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:55:40 +0000, "i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt" said:
>
>> Here: all networks that didn't already change their peering IP are not
>> yet connected to the updated route-server. Some networks are not
>> connected to any route-server. Therefore, those networks did not yet
>> change their peering IP.
>>
>> I think you can see what's wrong with that statement.. it does not
>> follow. That has nothing to do with peering department resources, but
>> everything to do with the chosen peering strategy.
>
> Under what conditions would somebody be present at the exchange and
> not talking to the route server *at all* before the IP change?
Route servers are a double-edged sword for many networks.
There are a number of reasons that one might choose not to peer with route
servers at an exchange point, even if you are willing to peer with every single
individual peer at the exchange.
It would be difficult for me to go into specific details without violating NDAs
from former employers, but it really doesn’t take all that much imagination.
Consider the following questions:
1. What information does one get from a direct peering that is
removed by a route server?
2. How does the AS PATH change if you are peering with a route
server?
3. What tools are available for measuring results of individual
peering sessions vs. sorting out individual
next-hops learned from a common peering session?
Owen
