[5888] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering is a lot of work.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley Dunn)
Tue Oct 29 16:14:25 1996
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:51:53 -0500 ()
From: Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>
To: "Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0b36.32.19961029151024.016dcdc0@justin.erols.com>
I think this is due to the fact that Kent consults for PacBell NAP, which
is ATM, which requires a PVC between peers. The PVC is setup only if both
parties agree, it is torn down if one dissents.
Obviously things are different at a FDDI NAP.
-BD
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Justin W. Newton wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 10/29/96 -0800, Kent W. England wrote:
> > But that
> >still begs the question of adequate defenses against default-pointing and
> >other bad effects and the business plan which still calls for all of this
> >to go away.
>
>
> One can point default at someone whether or not they are peering with the
> person. I am somewhat confused by the thought that people believe that
> they need to be peering with someone to have that person point default at
> them. I could (I don't, but I could), point default at /anyone/ on the
> same switch fabric as me, whether they are peering with me or not. Why do
> people continue to tie these 2 issues together?
