For inbound traffic, they're completely fine. This is only looking at the route servers. You can almost certainly receive 50/50 traffic ratios if you do bilateral peering. This post only covers the " automatic peering " services that IXs offer
Kind of "funny" affected service is BGP RouteViews CLI access, still running over telnet: https://archive.routeviews.org/ (scroll to bottom of the page)
Isn't this one of the remaining, "legit" uses of the Telnet protocol on TCP/23 port over the public Internet?
...all of which are (usually) free. IMHO you should have a competing product + money strategy before you continue. Many people have tried (and failed) to make money off BGP.
One reason is there already was exabgp, written in Python, which in my experience is slow and resource hungry. Golang is much faster, easily portable, and produces static binaries (easy to deploy).
Another thing is bgpipe speaks JSON to background (or even remote) packet processors, so basically you can use whatever language you want with it to drive your BGP routers.
- math/rand
The math/rand package now automatically seeds the global
random number generator (used by top-level functions like
Float64 and Int) with a random value, and the top-level
Seed function has been deprecated. Programs that need a
reproducible sequence of random numbers should prefer to
allocate their own random source, using
rand.New(rand.NewSource(seed)).
(...)
1. 100 IXes alone would get 56% IPv4 and 61% IPv6 prefixes, but ~14% reachability
2. little uniqueness between exchanges: not many new prefixes after the top 5
3. for outbound-heavy networks IXes are great, but to attract traffic they are not (edit: applies to automatic peering via route servers)
reply