[ixpmanager] Independent Route Server

[Justin Wilson (Lists)]

What happens to all of your peers who filter out prefixes smaller than a /24? This is pretty standard practice across the board these days. We thought of doing smaller blocks ourselves, but after polling the members, we decided it was not a great idea.


Justin Wilson
j2sw at mtin.net

—
https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109)
https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog

> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Salvador Bertenbreiter <salvador at pitperu.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I thought of that idea but my concern is the router capacity limitation, since we have cache servers from different CDNs and two of them have their own dedicated CDN routers connected to them. So if I combine all the servers in one router I will need to forward traffic all the traffic of all the caches from different CDN providers via a single router instead of having a route servers where the traffic is only forwarded via the switches. 
> 
> I was thinking of create another BIRD route server not connected to IXP Manager, so I can allow /25 prefixes and only create BGP peers for the members that need access to the cache servers. However, my concern is that it can become a PITA to maintain that route server compared to how easy it is with IXP Manager. 
> 
> Is there a way to create a secondary, but independent route server in IXP Manager, where I can apply different filters and peers compared than the ones we allow in the main router servers? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 01:58:46 -0400
> From: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists at mtin.net <mailto:lists at mtin.net>>
> To: INEX IXP Manager Users Mailing List <ixpmanager at inex.ie <mailto:ixpmanager at inex.ie>>
> Subject: Re: [ixpmanager] Independent Route Server
> Message-ID: <BAD45695-8596-47DC-824C-0464FB70EE60 at mtin.net <mailto:BAD45695-8596-47DC-824C-0464FB70EE60 at mtin.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
> 
> What we did is add a ?cache router? to the IX.  All caching nodes go behind this so burning a /24 isn?t as painful.
> 
> 
> El vie., 21 de agosto de 2020 9:07 p. m., Salvador Bertenbreiter <salvador at pitperu.net <mailto:salvador at pitperu.net>> escribió:
> Hi guys,
> I hope you're doing great. I have two public Route Servers we use to exchange traffic among all members without restrictions beside advertise anything bigger than /24. However, we also have some Cache Servers that we fill with IP transit and that are part of a /25 network. Because of those two points, we need to give access to those servers (or actually that network) only to select members, so I can't advertise that /25 network to the regular Route Servers. 
> 
> I'm thinking of another way to share the routes of those Cache servers to those "select" members and the members' routes to the cache network,  I was thinking of a solution to create another separate route server that only certain members can peer with and that also supports /25 networks. What do you think of this approach? Any similar case?
> 
> If it is a good idea, can I do that in the same IXP Manager instance or do I need a separate IXP Manager instance?
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> _______________________________________________
> INEX IXP Manager mailing list
> ixpmanager at inex.ie
> Unsubscribe or change options here: https://www.inex.ie/mailman/listinfo/ixpmanager

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.inex.ie/pipermail/ixpmanager/attachments/20200824/b38c0f8b/attachment.htm>