<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">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.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<div>Justin Wilson<br class=""><a href="mailto:j2sw@mtin.net" class="">j2sw@mtin.net</a><br class=""><br class="">—<br class="">https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109)<br class="">https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog</div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Salvador Bertenbreiter <<a href="mailto:salvador@pitperu.net" class="">salvador@pitperu.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Hi,</div><div dir="auto" class="">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. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">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. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Is there a way to create a secondary, but independent route server in IXP Manager, where I <span style="font-family:sans-serif" class="">can apply different filters and peers compared than the ones we allow in the main router servers? </span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span style="font-family:sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span style="font-family:sans-serif" class="">Thanks,</span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span style="font-family:sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span style="font-family:sans-serif" class="">Best regards</span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div>Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 01:58:46 -0400<br style="" class="">From: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <<a href="mailto:lists@mtin.net" style="" class="">lists@mtin.net</a>><br style="" class="">To: INEX IXP Manager Users Mailing List <<a href="mailto:ixpmanager@inex.ie" style="" class="">ixpmanager@inex.ie</a>><br style="" class="">Subject: Re: [ixpmanager] Independent Route Server<br style="" class="">Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:BAD45695-8596-47DC-824C-0464FB70EE60@mtin.net" style="" class="">BAD45695-8596-47DC-824C-0464FB70EE60@mtin.net</a>><br style="" class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br style="" class=""><br style="" class="">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.<br style="" class=""><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El vie., 21 de agosto de 2020 9:07 p. m., Salvador Bertenbreiter <<a href="mailto:salvador@pitperu.net" class="">salvador@pitperu.net</a>> escribió:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi guys,<br class=""><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks and best regards,</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">INEX IXP Manager mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:ixpmanager@inex.ie" class="">ixpmanager@inex.ie</a><br class="">Unsubscribe or change options here: https://www.inex.ie/mailman/listinfo/ixpmanager<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>