[50381] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: istop arrogance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Sat Jul 27 11:16:43 2002
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: Paul Schultz <pschultz@pschultz.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207271015440.3674-100000@elvis.kravshera.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > > Because you could *gasp* be intelligent with your network design and do
> > > things like purchase transit from the same carriers in both your serving
> > > markets.
> >
> > I guess you don't consider redundancy to be intelligent. I do. I guess
> > you can call me stupid.
>
> Carriers is a plural word.. How does that not accomplish redundancy again?
As I pointed out in my last post, I can't. And even if I could the
economics of doing it don't make sense.
If economics don't matter, then the most intelligent network design would
be a redundant OC192 mesh, but I don't know even one network that does
that.
-Ralph
