[168307] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Pels)
Sat Jan 18 14:24:33 2014
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:23:52 +0100
From: Martin Pels <martin.pels@ams-ix.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <818A55E6-40E6-4106-B012-8F70CB16676E@ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Sig_/2vilQG8g8p6+jF=4NY2DtZ3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Leo,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:18:13 -0600
Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> This whole problem smacks to me of exchange points that are "too big to f=
ail". Since some of these exchanges are so big, everyone else must bend to=
their needs. I think the world would be a better place if some of these w=
ere broken up into smaller exchanges and they imposed less restrictions on =
their participants.
You forgot to add "and would break down on a weekly basis".
The restrictions that IXPs impose on their customers have nothing to do with
the size of their peering LAN, but everything with offering a reliable serv=
ice
to these same customers.
Kind regards,
Martin
--Sig_/2vilQG8g8p6+jF=4NY2DtZ3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlLa1MkACgkQ/QK0Q3aOvo85YQCffcI+wHVDEhHfDy5fJOX2NYEs
oxcAnR16I+D87d7c8uwp1d8x0r9Vt5Iy
=InFb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/2vilQG8g8p6+jF=4NY2DtZ3--
