[107764] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New Intercage upstream
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Sep 12 15:55:17 2008
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:33 EDT."
<200809121424.34050.lowen@pari.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:55:01 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1221249301_3046P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:33 EDT, Lamar Owen said:
> peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I)
> PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but
Playing devil's advocate here - it guarantees a connection, but does it also
guarantee that PIE won't null-route any of the customer's packets trying to
leave PIE's network at an upstream peer/transit point? :)
However, if Gadi's claim that they don't seem to have any clients other than
Intercage is right, I'm sure the correct term for the connection guarantee
is "bulletproof"...
--==_Exmh_1221249301_3046P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFIyskVcC3lWbTT17ARAi8PAKCMCU2XoW4LacqjUWk3cYdZ2YJrBQCfTwkT
DoNvN8EHVS4MMIajhnHJEZo=
=cuS0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1221249301_3046P--
