[145776] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internap lose all clue?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan Rawdon)
Thu Oct 20 17:04:42 2011
From: Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEs2ZiLHi-whK0eSANwdD+zG93xk21+D95EovrK1RoiacYeQuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:03:05 -0400
To: bas <kilobit@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:48 PM, bas wrote:
> Recently I was contacted by an Internap sales person.
> The third line of the email read:
>=20
> "As you know well, BGP makes all routing decisions simply based on HOP =
COUNT"
>=20
> I blinked my eyes a couple of times.. Yes it really said hop count.
> Then I replied to the guy that if he tries to sell a technical product
> to technical people he should get his info straight.
>=20
> But he replied BGP actually makes decisions based on hop count.
> He even sent an URL from the internap website that states this
> http://www.internap.com/it-iq/route-optimization-miro/
>=20
> On that page there is also this gem:
> "BGP relies on the premise that hops are responsible for packet loss
> and congestion, and therefore a route with fewer hops is inherently
> better. "
>=20
>=20
> I can imagine blatant misinformation like this from a shady startup
> trying to trick some sales with smoke and mirrors, but from Internap?
>=20
>=20
That's a shame - I had a sales-oriented conversation with a few people =
from Internap (we are already a customer but this was about other =
services) and they were very clueful. This was a few months ago =
(including some discussions about BGP and their optimization products =
where their technical sales lead was clueful about how it worked and =
what it did).
Though, Internap had the NOC who replied to a problem report of mine =
(where even-numbered addresses weren't pingable in our block via =
Internap; I used <our prefix>.0, a router loopback, as an indication of =
something unpingable which normally is) with "You should expect <our =
prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our prefix>.0 as that =
is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network interface of =
any kind, or any machine, at all" =20=
