[34824] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network for Sale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Tue Feb 20 10:44:37 2001
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:41:58 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010220234158.K41037@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <g3vgq5bc9c.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>; from vixie@mfnx.net on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:33:03AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) writes:
>
> > Beyond that, I'm _REALLY_ sick of people pissing and moaning about NAPS
> > being congestion points. If you're so tired of the exchange point being
> > slow, INVEST IN MAKING IT FASTER!!!!! ...
>
> That's what PAIX did. And Equinix for that matter. Exchange points aren't
> slow, though I admit that some of the ATM-based exchanges have hit their
> scaling limit. Exchange points based on Ethernet with rich PNI opportunities
> literally do not have scaling limits.
I'm curious - has anyone performed a study of the BGP convergence
times at NAPs? I mean, all those private interconnects are good and
fine and all, but with the existing BGP implementations in vendor
equipment today, I can see the BGP convergence as this big matrix
of relationships of BGP performance of peers routers.
On the same breath, why aren't people using route-servers at NAPs?
Adrian
--
Adrian Chadd "Romance novel?"
<adrian@creative.net.au> "Girl Porn."
- http://www.sinfest.net/d/20010202.html
