[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

Subject: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:54:21 +0200
In-reply-to: <CAE_ug15tWxr_wE4SnGxoqiTec9brG_xqDLbjzakXy1fqB5aM8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE_ug143GsMN3+CNz=AgTr+xjGWY2CrmXYW=jf36JQ3AAnukFw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAE_ug15tWxr_wE4SnGxoqiTec9brG_xqDLbjzakXy1fqB5aM8A@mail.gmail.com>

On 18/Aug/15 18:02, Tim Durack wrote:

> Can I ask why you terminate peering and transit on different routers? (Not
> suggesting that is bad, just trying to understand the reason.)

Easier policy enforcement for us.

Lowers the chance of you dealing with traffic in ways you don't intend
(although that can always be fixed).

Spreading both commercial and technical risk, depending on whether you
value transit more than peering, or vice versa.

Avoiding kinky things with VRF's.

Mark.

References:
- Peering + Transit Circuits
  - From: tdurack at gmail.com (Tim Durack)
- [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
  - From: tdurack at gmail.com (Tim Durack)

Prev by Date: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
Next by Date: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
Previous by thread: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
Next by thread: Peering + Transit Circuits
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread