[nsp] Router for a route server/reflector?

[Daniel Roesen]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 09:08:56PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> >> I'm setting up a local exchange point and I need 2 routers to act as
> >> route reflector.
> >
> > Why that? Route servers add a significant administrative SPOF and
> > decrease flexibility for the peers.
> 
> 2 Route reflectors peering with everyone and themselves will eliminate 
> the SPOF.

Wrong. I specifically said _administrative_ SPOF. All members rely
on correct configuration of those two servers. If somethings breaks,
they can't fix it bilaterally, but need you to fix it. You are 24/7/365,
with which reaction time and time-to-fix? All the members can do is shut
down all their peerings on this IXP if something breaks enough.

> Reflectors will reduce the load on all members routers which is a
> good thing.

What actual load? Route reflectors primarily add BGP update propagation
delays and remove flexibility especially regarding best path decision
of each peer.

> > Better encourage your members to peer directly.
> 
> One of the requirements for access to the exchange point is local 
> peering (non transit) with everyone else connected.  Route reflectors 
> will accomplish that nicely.

So you want to use them to enforce a commercial policy, or are members
free to establish direct peerings, bypassing the route servers?

I still fail to see any real technical advantage in adding route
servers.

> I don't want to have members with elitist 
> mentality refusing to peer with others because they are too small.

That's a commercial/policy discussion which is off-topic here, and I'm
quite bored of this (regular quarterly NANOG) topic anyway. :-)

My comment regarding route servers was just about technical things.


Regards,
Daniel