|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0510051402240.26258@server.duh.org> Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:24:01 -0400 To: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Todd Vierling wrote: > No, I mean: Why didn't *your upstream's* routes fall back to > *their* other > peers, who should be perfectly capable of transiting those packets? > > The thinly veiled implication there is that "full mesh" is not a > long term > effective way to run the backbone level transit, because dropping > one peer > without an alternate path means that we get broken transit. Yum. You are very, very confused on how the Internet works. Which network do you run, sir? I find it useful to know which networks have engineers who understand not only "conf t" but also what the commands they type actually mean. -- TTFN, patrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |