RE: comments on proposed setup

[Rob Gipman <gipmanr@mtn.co.ug>]

This is not true, the IXP has to have 2 routers and 2 ether switches for
redundancy and if a route reflector is needed then this can be one of the
routers or an additional router. Ether switches can not run BGP4 unless we
have an extreme ether switch. Have a look at the IXP white paper Barry Green
wrote at Cisco. This document was made after investigating IXP all over the
world on how they have the setup.

p.s. who is Randy? was he at our meetings?


-----Original Message-----
From: Sematimba Noah K [mailto:ksemat@wawa.eahd.or.ug]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 8:07 PM
To: techies@uixp.co.ug
Subject: comments on proposed setup


This is what Randy had to say when I asked him for his opinion on the IXP.

> ISP A ----------[ router]-------[ IXP ] ------[router] -------ISPB
> 				   |
> 				[route reflector]

the IXP should be only a layer-2 switch, like a $300 10/100 ether switch.

the route reflector is optional, and can be a problem.  it forces multi-
lateral agreement where bi-leterals are fine and often better, it is
a complex point of failure, ...  and folk are gonna have to run bgp
anyway.

it would be good for all concerned to discuss this on the afnog or tcpws
list.

randy