Another nznog post after one has obviously had too many beers on a Friday night.

Suggesting they RTFM��� 

lE karl@mothership.co.nz lmothership.co.nz  lA PO Box 99814, Newmarket  l021 999 990 lP 974 3171



On 9/09/2016, at 8:32 PM, Dean Pemberton <nznog@deanpemberton.com> wrote:

If only there were some RFCs for how to deploy route servers at exchange points.....


http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947.txt
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7948.txt


:)

On Wednesday, 7 September 2016, Don Stokes <don@daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
Hi Tim, Sid,

So can we clarify ... if Site A is "opt out" (i.e. old and busted behaviour, IX ASN inserted) and site B is "opt in" (new hotness behaviour, IX ASN not inserted):
  • Would Site A see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site B?
  • Would Site B see the IX ASN inserted in routes announced to the route servers by Site A?
That is, is the ASN inserted into a route's AS path based on where the route comes from, or where it's announced to? Is there more than one setting?

-- don
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog