[52775] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sprint passes uu?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Oct 15 17:25:52 2002
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:03:17 EDT."
<20021015210317.GK26000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:25:21 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-530735803P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:03:17 EDT, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> said:
> Looks like UU routes have been steadily falling, dunno if they aggregated
> (hah!) or just lost customers due to, well, you know. But by the metrics
> people/reporters have been using to declare UU "half the internet", it
> looks like they're now #2.
Well.. yeah.. but my hypothetical 64 /8's are twice address space than
your hypothetical 2,097,152 /24's.
About the only conclusion that you can *safely* draw is that Sprint has a
more complicated network than UU does. Now *hopefully*, they have more
customers too, or the Sprint backbone engineers will have to carry a much
higher complexity/customer ratio, which means when the senior engineers finally
snap under the pressure, we'll get junior engineers making weird work-arounds
that will just complicate things 5 years down the road.
Oh wait.. that already happened at most carriers, didn't it? That's where we
got the CURRENT crop of senior engineers.. ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_-530735803P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE9rIfAcC3lWbTT17ARAnewAKCE2+g9Yb2PI0VQmS4EwqcpGK2kVQCfW6rR
wrmbtwN4y8vR5Moxl38eBCI=
=fQ2c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-530735803P--
