[65758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Need Contact at RoadRunner
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Dec 8 10:24:40 2003
To: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:16:49 GMT."
<OF77D203B4.E29832AD-ON80256DF6.00371C14-80256DF6.003878E3@radianz.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:24:03 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-54857772P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:16:49 GMT, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com said:
> Email peering *IS* a smarter hammer. If all the cluefull email
> administrators would set up peering agreements with each other
> and exchange contact information, there would be fewer of these
> situations.
There's a lot more people doing SMTP than doing BGP. Also, AS1312 (us) and our
related routing swamp does BGP peering with less than a dozen peers, but we end
up talking SMTP to a good chunk of the world. I've got one machine that all by
itself talked to 2,615 hosts in 1,612 second-level domains yesterday.
Unless you're advocating a return to the X.400-style ADMD/PRMD stuff,
this really is a non-starter. I don't have time to set up 1,600+ peering agreements,
and possibly have to set up more just because somebody subscribes to a mailing list
(either somebody elsewhere subscribes to ours, or one of my users subscribes elsewhere).
And history has passed its own verdict on ADMD/PRMD.
--==_Exmh_-54857772P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE/1JeTcC3lWbTT17ARAsTTAKCpKi6F4k9LJTV1SFmlosx+kuqGhACg8fjT
68hlGKOyA6mBHOkqnNqcg+A=
=muan
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-54857772P--
