[zanog-discuss] Poor Internet manners - Psychz Networks
mark at tinka.africa
Sat May 29 10:25:23 SAST 2021
On 5/29/21 09:27, Ron B via zanog-discuss wrote:
> - why should a single guy’s setup on an IX result in everyone else
> having to change theirs?
This is a valid concern. Intentionally causing breakage is bad form.
That said, route servers do not provide a guarantee of reachability or
forwardability (sic). They mainly simplify peering turn-up in a
contract-free relationship with other networks. Of course, the exchange
point operator makes every effort to ensure that their platform works as
designed, but policy applied across route server sessions really lies
with the network operators who choose to use it.
> - why use an IX if you going to ignore it?
It's important to separate the exchange point fabric from the route
servers. Route servers are not a requirement to be able to participate
on the exchange point fabric.
Presence at an exchange point does not mean you have use a route server.
And by extension, presence at a data centre that hosts an exchange point
does not mean that you have to join said exchange point.
> - what is the responsibility of the IX?
Best they can do is facilitate a discussion between the affected
parties. It's not the exchange point operator's responsibility to tell
network operators how to run their networks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zanog-discuss