[99461] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Sat Sep 22 12:29:24 2007
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:26:15 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0709220918150.24441@soloth.lewis.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 09:23:11AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
[snip]
> Has everyone forgotten the "Tier 1 depeerings" of several years ago? i.e.
> If you were pointing default at C&W, PSINet, Cogent, or Level3 when they
> each had or caused depeering issues, parts of the internet ceased to be
> reachable. In such cases, having full routes from multiple providers was
> the only way to be automatically protected from such games.
The triumph of marketing in the so-called tier-1s is just sad.
The continued success of them reflects the lack of... oh wait,
didn't 3561 change hands a lot? And didn't supposedly inferior
edge networks pick up 701, 7018, 174 ....
Perhaps having marketing dictate a fragile network strategy
isn't in the best business interest after all.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
