[52041] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John M. Brown)
Thu Sep 12 21:51:44 2002
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:50:16 -0700
From: "John M. Brown" <john@chagresventures.com>
To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Cc: Tim Thorne <tim.thorne@btinternet.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9ECEFC2A-C59F-11D6-8EF5-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se>; from kurtis@kurtis.pp.se on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:00:40PM +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Yet, it is reasonable that people expect x % of their traffic to
use IX's. If those IX"s are gone then they will need to find another
path, and may need to upgrade alternate paths.
I guess the question is.
At what point does one build redundancy into the network.
I suspect its a balancing act between reducancy, survival (network)
and costs vs revenues.
not sure I'd call it a "poor job" for not planning all possible
failure modes, or for not having links in place for them.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:00:40PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>
>
> On fredag, sep 6, 2002, at 21:57 Europe/Stockholm, Tim Thorne wrote:
>
> > OK, what if 60 Hudson, 25 Broadway, LinX and AmsIX were all put out of
> > commission?
>
> To some extent - nothing for the above...if design right. The major
> networks should have designed their networks to route around this. If
> not - they have done a poor job. For others, the exchange points should
> be a way merely to off-load their transit connections.
>
> However - there is a point in what you are saying, from a national
> point of view - the exchange points should independently take care of
> traffic in the case a nation is isolated. But I don't think any of the
> above are designed for that in the first place...
>
>
> - kurtis -
>
