[190145] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Jun 16 12:07:11 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:07:04 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <m2fusddt66.wl%randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>> This thread is full of people who have never run large L2 networks
>> stating their opinions on running large L2 networks, and they
>> invariably underestimate their complexity and the logistics required.
* randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 17:56 CEST]:
>maybe the complexity and the logistics required are WHY they don't build
>large L2 networks. SMITH: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. DALE: Don't
>do that.
Wait. I thought vijay "your solution doesn't scale" gill was a hero
of the NANOG community, but now you're telling me that actually
scaling up is a sin?
>> sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. Neither is remote peering.
>by 'remote peering' do you mean an exchange essentially selling transit?
I mean the common practice of connecting via a L2 pseudowire with
a provider that has an arrangement with the IXP to do so, rather than
putting a router in a datacenter the IXP is in and then connecting to
that router with possibly the same provider to the rest of your network.
Mikael Abrahamsson probably meant the same thing when he used the term
two mails upthread.
-- Niels.
