Re: "Peering Router"
Bryan Holloway via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5/12/26 7:49 AM, Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote: > > > On 08/05/2026 22:12, Seth Mattinen via NANOG wrote: >> >> I personally don't mix transit and peering duties on the same device. >> I have a dedicated router for peering sessions and a dedicated router >> for each transit provider. I find it easier to manage and it limits >> scope if one of them has a problem or needs an update since it only >> affects its own playground. > > This. > > A dedicated peering router also ensures you eliminate providing transit > to a peer if you make a configuration error, as the peering router > neither carries the DFZ nor 0/0, ::/0. > > Mark. 100% -- we do this too. In a pinch we've done "peering in a VRF", but I wouldn't recommend it. It's a pain in the ass to set up, and an even bigger pain to troubleshoot if you don't understand how it works. Plus it doesn't scale. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SVCQAVHFKO3JZV4A7N7MMZW4ZXSRRSG6/