[46408] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Exodus/C&W Depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Mar 26 20:11:41 2002
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326200502.03ea1268@127.0.0.1>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:08:09 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20020327005839.GV19704@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 07:58 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:31:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> >Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
>> >is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to C&W/EXODUS,
>> >which we probably weren't doing anyway.
>>
>> Actually, it also mean a reduction in the possible paths presented to my
>> router for computation. Some would say this is a good thing. Me, I like
>> having multiple choices / redundancy. Better to have two ways to get to
>> EXDS than one. IMHO, of course.
>
>In my experience, the odds of any given path sucking are far greater than
>the odds of that path going away. Therefore I would rather have one path
>which doesn't suck than two paths which may.
So would I. Doubt anyone would rather have two sucky paths than one good one.
However, in my experience, I would rather have to chose between me -> EXDS
and me -> upstream -> EXDS, than be forced to use me -> upstream -> C&W.
>Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
--
TTFN,
patrick
