|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re:
There are a number of boxes that can do this, or are in beta. It would be a horrific mistake to base an exchange point of any size around one of them. Talk about difficulty troubleshooting, not to mention managing the exchange point. Get a Foundry BigIron 4000 or a Riverstone SSR. Exchange point in a box, so to say. The Riverstone can support the inverse-mux application nicely, on it's own, as can a Foundry, when combined with a Tiara box. Daniel Golding NetRail,Inc. "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > > > There's another option for IXP architecture, virtual routers over a > scalable fabric. This is the only approach which combines capacity of > inverse-multiplexed parallel L1 point-to-point links and flexibility of > L2/L3 shared-media IXPs. The box which can do that is in field trials > (though i'm not sure the current release of software supports that > functionality). > > --vadim > > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > > > > Randy; > > > > > > BGP Route Reflector IXPs need a AS number. I'll send you a URL with a > > > > whitepaper. The BGP Route Reflector IXPs have proved to offer a low entry > > > > cost for ISPs (for those places that do not have the deep pockets to get > > > > big routers). > > > > > > except that big routers are not needed for small-isp exchanges. remember, > > > an isp participating in such an exchange has only to add the prefixes of > > > their local peers to their routing, typically a dozen or so. there are very > > > successful layer-two exchanges where the peers use what we think of as cpe > > > routers, e.g. cisco 2501s. and what's nice is that this is on the right > > > path to exchange growth. > > > > > > l3 exchange ponints are a labor suck and are fragile. > > > > Maybe. However, l2 is for telco. > > > > l2 exchange ponints are a labor suck and are fragile. > > > > The right path is l1, though, then, there is less reason to have > > exchange points. > > > > It will be more obvious as the peering speed between two ISPs exceeds > > that of a single physical interface. > > > > Masataka Ohta > > > >
|