LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MICE-DISCUSS Archives


MICE-DISCUSS Archives

MICE-DISCUSS Archives


MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MICE-DISCUSS Home

MICE-DISCUSS Home

MICE-DISCUSS  October 2017

MICE-DISCUSS October 2017

Subject:

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

From:

Michael Hare <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:56:44 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager