[187266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Butterworth)
Mon Jan 25 17:30:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:28:12 GMT
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
To: brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk, jmaimon@ttec.com, nick@foobar.org,
mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> From mark.tinka@seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:46 2016
> > 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.
Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it
won't be failing over to another one. Same effect
> A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to
> experience.
The general case doesn't care about your network, it assumes you'd
engineer that appropriately for the criticality and do something
different/better if you need to.
brandon
