|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: istop arrogance
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:17:57AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > Carriers is a plural word.. How does that not accomplish redundancy again? > > As I pointed out in my last post, I can't. And even if I could the > economics of doing it don't make sense. > > If economics don't matter, then the most intelligent network design would > be a redundant OC192 mesh, but I don't know even one network that does > that. Ralph, I will give you some swamp space for your /24s if you never post about your 2621 powered OC192 mesh network-to-be again. If you want a solution that doesn't cost you any money, either a) get more IP space and carve up stuff into /21s, or b) go browsing through the list of allocated but unused swamp space and start announcing it. Otherwise, you will be filtered, no doubt gleefully from the members of this list. This is not the end of the world, they don't need your more specifics for the traffic to reach you. As long as your transit providers accept your more specifics from each other, announce the aggregate to whichever is primary, and more spcifics to other providers in other locations. The worst that can happen is you go Filterer->Transit1->Transit2 for some limited subset of the internet (but hey it doesn't cost you anything). Your economic problems are your own, if you were smart you would learn how to solve them within the rules of the game. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
|