On Tuesday 25 October 2005 23:56, Guido Sohne wrote: > AFAIK all ISPs have their own AS numbers. The exchange > has its own AS number as well.
Then this sounds like a router server model (eBGP), not a route reflector model (iBGP). Don't worry, the terminology has been contentious in the past :). > ISP routers receive > updates from the IX router, and send updates to their > peers. Each ISP set their router up and should have > (were told to and shown how to) set up ingress and > egress route advertisement filters for their BGP > advertisements. I see. > GIX can always move to a hybrid model. These are the > training wheels and my guess is that ISPs will go how > and where they really want to. GIX should just try and > make life easier for them and to keep the network > stable, fast and secure as possible, recognizing that > they may have different needs and priorities. I suppose so. If the GIX is determining how members connect and peer, then I guess it will decide which model is best. Albeit, consultation with the members and external folk would help. > Very interesting. I need to understand the issues > behind these things, from the point of view of the > network operator. How have they been trying to rectify > the situation, and what is the situation that needs to > be rectified? From what I gathered, they took on a route reflector model, where all ISP's are not only in the same AS, but peer through a central router. > How many ISPs are at the Kenya exchange? Uncertain, but all the major ISP's I know are there. Badru, do you have a figure on this? > Which is ... hybrid? Full mesh? Full mesh. Hybrid is good, and is an option whoever is managing the exchange point could offer. > Me, on the other hand was an equally lost soul, I had > never touched a router before, so I was a little > intimidated and frustrated. e.g what is the name of the > interface I just plugged my cable into, or I want to > ping/traceroute and just don't know its built in, or I > like to edit config files with comments, not eyeball > the output of 'sh run' where you have to enter some > nook and cranny in the command structure to change > something. I don't even understand why am arguing with > you :-) You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. The full mesh approach inspires quick acquisition of field knowledge when deploying BGP. I think it's worth the trade-off. > Yes. Also more hurdles along the way, approval here, > negotiation there. My problem is that our > organizational processes move slowly. Maybe its > different in East/South Africa, but I'd rather not have > to contend with approvals, decisions etc because it > wastes time and makes people have to drive to other > offices several times etc. So no red tape. Full speed > ahead - crash if you want to, it's your car. Once the exchange point is up and running, there's really no reason to politicize any technical suggestions or progress. The members can agree within each other - no need for senate or board meetings ;). > If you want to run things more your way, why not filter > out what you don't want? I see that complexity or > tedium could emerge from either N peers having to > configure N - 1 peers, or some peers having to contend > with filtering from a set of N(N - 1) routes. This is a point of view - some others think you can peer with a central route server, but then have a direct peering agreement with another member at the same exchange point, so you can implement more flexibile routing policies as and when your network requirements dictate. > I guess it is the same reason it took so long to have > an exchange. Business distrust, lack of cooperation etc > make ISPs tend to be insular unto themselves rather > than to interweave into a local network. Yes, getting the necessary 'infrastructure' in place to start an exchange point is the hard part. But that's now over. If you look closely, the techies now have the upper hand, unless the GIX is profit-motivated, of course. > Yes. These are the kind of stunts that amaze me. > Peering is a basic decision that is really a no > brainer. These are decisions that I think are taken > without real understanding or as cynical, grandstanding > brinkmanship in some hardball business environment. Not necessarily. Bigger networks don't simply peer with anyone (especially with smaller networks). Because of the difference in traffic volumes, the benefit to both parties would usually be asymmetric. > If they won't peer, then why are they at the exchange > at all? In fact, why an exchange in the first place? This is a good point. If they are at the exchange they can connect to the switch and peer with whomever they want. Alternatively, they can have a direct peering agreement (back-to-back router connections) with other ISP's at the exchange point. In other cases, ISP's abandon peering at the exchange point altogether and run high speed links between each other to get the benefits. I know ISP's in .za and other well-established communities that are doing this. More than we can accept, when a lot is at stake, it begins to hinge around monetarial cost/benefit > The shameful thing is that is exactly what it will take > to allow them to grow into 'mini telcos'. We should be > building up our local interconnectivity so that we > become attractive as a destination. Right, you are, especially in Africa where individual in-country traffic is minimal, but overall continent traffic can be significant. > My observation here is that the big ISPs used peering > to lock out the little guys. They peered with each > other only, was what ended up happening. That doesn't > make any sense to me except if it was more an argument > of who should control the peering point while all > understand the need to and benefit from peering. I > don't think though that policy should be like an iron > fist on this. More like, do what you want to, but don't > disrupt what we are doing. I'll give you one reason why large ISP's peer with each other, and not with smaller-to-mid-level ISP's: say ISP A has a network worth 155Mbps, and ISP B has a network worth 180Mbps. ISP A and B feel they have enough traffic for a direct peering with each other to make sense. ISP C has 1Mbps worth of network traffic. ISP A and B will refuse to peer with ISP C because ISP C would have too much to benefit, and ISP A and B would lose a potential customer. Yes, cruel, but hey... > I can't seem to understand your point of view. What > experiences have you had that make you see it this way? > Or is it that you prefer to maintain as much control of > operations as possible in order to deliver the best > service within your capacity? If so, then what policies > would you advocate and put in place? Also, I'd like to > look at this more from a policy perspective rather than > a technical perspective. My reason for full mesh is for knowledge, experience and independence to trickle through. Mark. > > -- G.
pgp6HkwQyNl5j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
