[42916] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Points of Failure (was Re: National infrastructure asset)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Tue Sep 25 16:49:25 2001
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:48:50 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <951008775.1001454529@[195.224.237.69]>
In-Reply-To: <E15lyfR-000KRX-00@rip.psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Tuesday, 25 September, 2001 1:18 PM -0700 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
wrote:
> note that richer meshes may increase forwarding reliability but they
> exacerbate routing convergence problems. see abha's nanog presentation.
&, particularly where such meshes are formed in part from multiple
providers, the probability of the types of critical errors caused by the
failure of any one the providers (as opposed to those which require
all of the providers to go down). [trivial example: most people
don't filter their upstreams at all. if you have n upstreams, then
if any one gets hacked and decides to send 100,000,000 routes
at you, you die. Probability increases with n]
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
