Received: by 10.231.16.131 with SMTP id o3mr850086iba.18.1294877719359;
        Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: nanog-@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.76.165 with SMTP id c37ls1236617ibk.3.p; Wed, 12 Jan 2011
 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.208.4 with SMTP id ga4mr878041ibb.11.1294877719130;
        Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.208.4 with SMTP id ga4mr878040ibb.11.1294877719089;
        Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org>
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [198.108.95.20])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m30si280139ibu.2.2011.01.12.16.15.19
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.108.95.20;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=s0.nanog.org)
	by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>)
	id 1PdAr9-000KIV-FN; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:15:59 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49])
	by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <larsscar...@gmail.com>) id 1PdApy-000IzC-Jt
	for NA...@NANOG.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:14:46 +0000
Received: by ywf7 with SMTP id 7so449380ywf.36
	for <NA...@NANOG.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:13:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.108.50 with SMTP id p38mr3431810yhg.84.1294877633301; Wed,
	12 Jan 2011 16:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.147.34.14 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:13:53 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1hx9ZGTWQ-WvB0AtdROu6iD+-ySOgGiH-o...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Routing Suggestions
From: Lars Carter <larsscar...@gmail.com>
To: NA...@NANOG.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
X-BeenThere: na...@nanog.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
	<mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog>
List-Post: <mailto:na...@nanog.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
	<mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org

Hi NANOG list,

I have a simple, hypothetical question regarding preferred connectivity
methods for you guys that I would like to get the hive mind opinion about.


There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
continuously exchange a large amount of sensitive data and are located in a
mutual datacenter. They decide to order a cross connect and peer privately
for the obvious reasons. Company A has a small but knowledgable engineering
staff and it's network is running BGP as its only routing protocol with
multiple transit vendors and a handful of other larger peers. Company B is a
smaller shop that is single homed behind one ISP through a default static
route, they have hardware that can handle advanced routing protocols but
have not had the need to implement them as of yet. There is a single prefix
on both sides that will need to be routed to the other party. It is rare
that prefixes would need to change or for additional prefixes to be added.


>From an technical, operational, and security standpoint what would be the
preferred way to route traffic between these two networks?


Cheers,

Lars