|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:38:02 -0400 From: Dorian Kim <dorian@blackrose.org> To: Jeff Barrows <jsb@UU.NET>, Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Barrows <jsb@UU.NET>, Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net>, nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980819173557.0167bfc0@neserve0.uu.net>; from Jeff Barrows on Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 05:35:57PM -0400 On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 05:35:57PM -0400, Jeff Barrows wrote: > - The peering session between Network A and Network B > is traversing the network of FDDI switches at the IX, > as the networks are not peering across a FDDI switch > that they have in common, and the links are congested. > > Other things one can do : > > - Peering session can be moved to a FDDI switch that > the two networks have in common. The others, as you've observed are reasonably fixable problems, given inclination, but this last problem is non-trivial to fix, because of the physically distributed nature of some interconnects. I'm not yet certain as to whether ATM replacement of FDDI is the right solution to this problem. -dorian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |