 |
 |
We (AS 3128) are mostly a Juniper shop. There are situations where our longhaul is not redundant and less diverse than you would hope. It is a problem easily solved with $$. At times this unfortunate situation leaves us with several hundred thousand routes to converge; it takes time. We're looking at JunOS 16 for deployment this winter. In addition to RPD being slightly threaded, JunOS 16.1 has features to optimize the order of processing RIB changes (policy-statement based). Our challenge becomes defining priority, optimizing on bandwidth per AS/subnet doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, some low bandwidth things (DNS) are paramount [and thankfully rather static]. For now we also have our internet tables in global unicast table. JunOS currently has features that allow you to program a secondary forwarding next hop but it is reserved for l3vpns. Doing that for the global unicast table is an uncommitted ER. I haven't yet started to seriously explore putting the internet in a VRF. -Michael >>-----Original Message----- >>From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>Of Jason Hanke >>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 9:01 AM >>To: [log in to unmask] >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? >> >>As a transport seller, We're seeing most networks most commonly buy >>linear paths to two or more IXes. Typically going opposite directions >>from their home base. We're also starting to see smaller operators >>exclusively doing remote peering. A typical set up is buying identical >>transport to the 2 adjacent IX buildings. >> >>On wavelengths, the link failure can be passed back to from end to >>end. Granted, a long-haul wavelength isn't as stable as a cross >>connect. >> >>If a network doesn't have any remote gear the convergence is governed >>by EBGP vs IBGP/IGP if there is an additional router. For remote >>setups, in particular with Ethernet transport we're seeing more and >>more BFD on the sessions. >> >>Jay >> >>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Michael Hare <[log in to unmask]> >>wrote: >>> For those buying wavelengths (compared to an mpls circuit), are you >>buying diverse transport? If not, how are you dealing with convergence >>stability? >>> >>> -Michael >>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >>Behalf >>>>>Of Colin Baker >>>>>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:29 PM >>>>>To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? >>>>> >>>>>On 27.10.2017 15:01, Matthew Beckwell wrote: >>>>>> For my own curiosity: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting >>>>>> themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap >>>>>> wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements >>from >>>>>> other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though >>>>>> technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's >>>>>> something else?). >>>>> >>>>>For us, the goal is to reach networks which are not on exchanges which >>>>>we're already connected. The big ones are at MICE, but there are other >>>>>exchanges we can get to reasonably inexpensively that have such a large >>>>>number of networks connected that it makes sense financially >>(compared >>>>>to buying more transit). Traffic from a huge number of ASNs, >>>>>particularly if most are on a route server, can really add up. >>>>> >>>>>Peering in multiple locations is a nice benefit to this, but usually not >>>>>a primary goal for us. >>>>> >>>>>> 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this >>>>>> out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some >>>>>> other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to >>>>>> where you really are?) >>>>> >>>>>If you haven't already, install as-stats >>>>>(https://github.com/manuelkasper/AS-Stats) to monitor things, which >>will >>>>>make it clear if something is out of whack. In most cases, our IGP >>>>>handles outbound traffic in a way the makes sense. Inbound traffic can >>>>>be trickier - a few networks will publish action communities or accept >>>>>MEDs, and we utilize those tools when available. Prepending is >>>>>occasionally useful. Announcing more specifics in certain spots always >>>>>felt like a jerk move so I tend to avoid that, but that's a thing I >>>>>suppose. >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Colin Baker >>>>>SupraNet Communications, Inc. >>>>>(608) 572-7634 >>>>>[log in to unmask] >>>>> >>>>>This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy >>>>>which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality >> >> >> >>-- >>Jay Hanke >>CTO >>Neutral Path Communications >>3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>Mankato, MN 56001 >>(507) 327-2398 mobile >>[log in to unmask] >>www.neutralpath.net