[86594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Nov 11 09:24:15 2005
In-Reply-To: <43745F33.5000203@harg.net>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:23:43 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Nov 11, 2005, at 4:06 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> the only stuff that makes me feel at all safe is what mike hughes
>> of linx described, or something even stricter, but i bow to mike's
>> experience.
>> and folk wonder why the grown-ups use pnis for anything important.
>
> Isn't this due to the fact their engineering scale is bigger?
> There's little point connecting to an IX fabric if you want to peer
> with 3 others and all of those at 10G. The assumption that big
> carriers don't join IXs because they're somehow unreliable or toy-
> like doesn't seem fair.
Who said "big carriers" don't join IXes? There are plenty of
networks who have more traffic than some "teir ones" at IXes. Hell,
RANDY has a presence at least one IX.
> Many folk have the highest respect for the operational efficacy of
> membership organisations like the LINX, and that is borne out by
> their willingness to join and put traffic across the exchanges.
Apparently those folk are not 'grown-ups'. The 100+ Gbps passing
over NAPs like AMS-IX and LINX are apparently just childish endeavors.
Or perhaps Randy is saying that Internet traffic in general is not
"important"?
--
TTFN,
patrick
