[54602] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US-Asia Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William B. Norton)
Thu Jan 9 23:43:07 2003
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:37:56 -0800
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, woody@pch.net
From: "William B. Norton" <wbn@equinix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E18WqYT-0002yp-00@rip.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 08:14 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases
> here:
> > 1) interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs.
> > 2) interconnecting IXes operated by different parties.
> >
> > In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there
> > is only one gun and one person, so you can easily figure out why the foot
> > hurts.
>
>well, now we know you have ever had to debug a large L2 disaster
Randy - You snipped out what I said out of context. Below is the complete
paragraph (and admittedly I should have said "relatively easily" rather
than "easily".) The point is that I don't think we are talking about
interconnecting switches operated by different parties, and I think you
would agree that if it is difficult diagnosing problems with a single large
scale l2 fabric, it is even more difficult with multiple administrative
domains. That was the point.
Original Paragraph:
>In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there
is only >one gun and one person, so you can easily figure out why the foot
hurts.
>In the latter case, there are more people with more guns. Without
perfect >information distributed among the operators, this is clearly a
more dangerous >situation and diagnosing/repairing is more difficult and
time intensive. I believe >we are really talking about the first case.
Woody - I'd still like to hear about the failures "in every prior instance".
>> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
>> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
>> customers don't complain too loudly.
>> not that it's a bad long-term plan...
>Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance.
>Thanks.
