[46459] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Mar 29 11:44:01 2002
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:43:26 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>
Cc: Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020329164326.GA87733@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>,
Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203290807230.2471-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In a message written on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 08:11:14AM -0600, Andy Walden wrote:
> > What would work better/faster?
> >
> > my-noc -> b0rken-noc
> >
> > or
> >
> > my-noc -> my-upstream-noc -> b0rken-noc-upstream-noc -> b0rken-noc
>
> Work better for who? For you? Sure. For a any provider that needs to
> provide quality services to its customers and follow processes to do so,
> not a chance. The Big Picture is key here.
Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their
load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc,
and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc.
It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general,
which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide
better service.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
