Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY

[mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)]

On 31/Jan/19 12:04, Julien Goodwin wrote:

> Even in exchanges that strongly encourage their use route collectors
> were much less connected to than route servers, and few exchanges had
> them in the first place.

We, for example, connect to RS's more selectively.

We are more liberal about RC's since they do not have an impact on our
forwarding paradigm, and it helps the exchange point know what's
happening across their fabric. But yes, I do imagine that interest level
of connecting to either an RS or RC could vary, particularly the larger
of a network you are.

>
> Part of the problem with advertising on route servers is many clients,
> including networks that should know better often treat those routes as a
> higher priority than is sensible, in some cases equal or higher than a
> PNI link in the same city.

Well, there are a number of peers that do not have a linear peering
relationship for all routes available at an exchange point, i.e., they
don't see those routes both via the RS and bi-lateral sessions. For many
networks, RS is the true source and bi-lateral sessions are not even
considered.

We may not always peer with an RS, but we will always have bi-lateral
sessions... even when we have sessions to the RS.

Mark.