Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ntacpeering - Re: Viability of a P&R FTW

Subject: NTAC Peering Working Group

List archive

Re: Viability of a P&R FTW


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Michael H Lambert <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: Viability of a P&R FTW
  • Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:57:12 -0400

Chris,

> On 18 Aug 2015, at 10:05, Spears, Christopher M.
> <>
> wrote:
>
> Exploring the potential for a FTW on Peering & Routing, I’ve come up with
> the following outline for the curriculum. On a broad level, I’d like to
> simply assess consensus on the viability of a such a workshop. If there’s
> either insufficient demand or content, then it may not be worth the effort
> to put on. If there is interest, then I’d like to solicit comments or
> proposed changes from the group.

I think (hope?) it would be worthwhile and this is a pretty good first cut at
a list of topics. I do have a couple of comments (inline).

> Internet2 Tools:
> - Router-proxy
> - SNAPP
> - Deepfield (w/NDA)

Should Deepfield be on the list? My impression is that after great initial
hoopla, it has at best faded into the background. Or is this feeling just
caused by the lack of follow-up by Internet2 with the regionals?

> Other tools:
> - route-views, peeringdb.com
> - RADb, IRR, RDAP
> - flow data, snmp
> - on-net cache/appliance

I would suggest talking about IRRToolSet in conjunction with IRR. I don't
know that anyone in our community is actively using it to generate
configurations, but it is a useful tool. And should RPKI be mentioned
somewhere?

And are we just talking about inter-domain unicast routing...?

Michael




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page