North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Exodus/C&W Depeering

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Tue Mar 26 19:35:43 2002

At 02:04 PM 3/26/2002 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>| This isn't something I really care to make a big argument of, but my point
>| was that for many ISPs, the path will go from:
>| to:
>| for a net increase in average path length.
>Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
>is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to C&W/EXODUS,
>which we probably weren't doing anyway.

Actually, it also mean a reduction in the possible paths presented to my router for computation. Some would say this is a good thing. Me, I like having multiple choices / redundancy. Better to have two ways to get to EXDS than one. IMHO, of course.

>Or are we talking forwarding paths, which are _different_ (and not
>necessarily stable even in the presence of perfect AS_Path stability)?
>If so, have we added any bottlenecks or sources of packet corruption?
>If none have been added, a change in the number of links and routers
>traversed is meaningless.

The *number* of routers and links is probably irrelevant. However, given C&W's history and current connectivity to "OTHER BACKBONES", it is likely a bottleneck, or extra fiber miles, or some other "problem" will be introduced into the forwarding path causing extra latency, packet loss, etc. for some portion of traffic.

Question is, do these problems affect enough traffic for anyone at C&W (or their customers) to notice / care? If not, then C&W probably has nothing to worry about.

BTW: I am interested in what portion of traffic does not get forwarded along the expected AS Path. Does anyone have an idea?

>(Note that it is possible that the number of links and routers DECREASES).

Is is also possible the air molecules in the room where I now sit will suddenly all congregate into a 1 square inch space in the corner over there. Although I admit your possibility is *slightly* more likely.

> Sean.