|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Paul Vixie wrote: > > warning: i've had one "high gravity steel reserve" over my quota. hit D now. > > > The issue I'm trying to address is to figure out how to extend the robustness > > that can be achieved with tuned IGP's with subsecond convergence across > > an exchange point without suffering a one to five minute delay blackholing > > packets. > > why on god's earth would subsecond anything matter in a nonmilitary situation? > If the software MTBF would be better, convergence would not be an issue. As long as it's an operational hazard to run core boxes (with some vendors anyway) with older piece of code than six months, you end up engineering convergence into the networks. > are you willing to pay a cell tax AND a protocol complexity tax AND a device > complexity tax to make this happen? do you know what that will do do your > TCO and therefore your ROI? you want to pay this tax 100% of the time even > though your error states will account for less than 0.001% of the time? you > want to have the complexity as your most likely source of (false positive) > error? Who said anything about cell tax? If I ask for liveness you give me ATM? > > > As far as I understand, this "complexity" just got added with Neighbor > > Discovery on IPv6. > > if so, then, you misunderstand. As far as I understand, ND does contain the functionality I'd like to accomplish, unfortunately it does not do that for IPv4. I'm just making points why, in existing operational environment, going from ATM to GE reduces robustness. Instead of going on the defensive it would probably help to discuss how to make ethernet-based solutions more robust, since that's where everybody is moving to anyway. Pete
|