[39572] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: When will 128M not be enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mike harrison)
Sun Jul 15 20:46:55 2001
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:45:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>,
"jlewis@lewis.org" <jlewis@lewis.org>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <NOEJJDACGOHCKNCOGFOMOEBPCIAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10107152043540.7120-100000@home.highertech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> peering with another major provider? Do you just send half of your traffic
> to that provider to nowhere? If you want fault tolerance against
> connectivity losses, you need full routes.
I tried partial... after changing which upstream provider was
my 'default route' a few times I quickly realized this was
stupid. Ram and CPU is cheap enough to make full routes,
even on a Cisco, a VERY desirable thing.
