[187261] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Mon Jan 25 15:01:06 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>, jmaimon@ttec.com,
nick@foobar.org
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:58:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX
> carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.
Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall
back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all
three.
A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to
experience.
Mark.
