[99470] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Sun Sep 23 10:40:17 2007
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0011210F2@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
> > having full routes from multiple providers was the only way
> > to be automatically protected.
>
> Not so. Anyone who had sufficient transit was also protected from
> the games. And they shielded their customers as well.
Michael, how are these two statements not in agreement? It looks to me
like you're saying the same thing: A network which claims "tier 1" status
by failing to buy any transit, subjects its customers to connectivity
failures when depeering happens, while a normal multi-homed network does
not inflict that failure upon its customers. Isn't that what you're both
saying?
Disclaimer: this is my first posting of the morning, thus it's inevitably
dunderheaded or offensive, for which everyone has my apologies in advance.
-Bill
