|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
Alan Hannan writes: > [Alexis writes:] > > It's a really bad decision. It saves the cost of hiring a real engineer, but > > who wants to see a repeat of MAE-East? IXPs need a real traffic cop, at the > > very least, to wreak havoc on people who play nasty link-layer games. (Yes, > > it's conceivable that everyone on the IXP could guard themselves, but this > > is highly inefficient both in dollars and hours spent.) > > It would seem to me that you've two rather positive choices -> > Elect the Routing Arbiter (Hi Bill :-) to police the XPs, or > through capitalism force the XP operators to implement such a > service. > > The former would be difficult as the're A/ overworked, and B/ > officially powerless at the XPs (unless the XPs annoint them, which > is highly suspect). The latter would be difficult in light of a > Robert Heinlein quote: > > " If you give the people the ability to vote themselves bread > and circuses, they will. " (Heh. I remember that quote.) You've pretty much repeated my point... > Were the market to change (it might) we could have this. Or, one > could create another market. Several smallerish XPs (StLouiX) > comes to mind, have high quality peering standards built into > them. I believe the CIX has done a fairly good job at this in the > past. > > But, it's my opinion that the only way to get MFS/PB/SL/AADS to > listen is with the pocketbook. Thus my decision. I think I'm going to tackle this one myself soon. I've given it a *lot* of thought. /a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|