|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: US-Asia Peering
At 06:07 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote: Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases here:> Where the same pseudo wire provider connects to say LINX, AMSIX, > DECIX your only a little way off having an interconnection of > multiple IXs, its possible this will occur by accident .. and l2 networks scale soooo well, and are so well known for being reliable. is no one worried about storms, spanning tree bugs, ... in a large multi-l2-exchange environment? this is not a prudent direction. 1) interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs. 2) interconnecting IXes operated by different parties. In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there is only one gun and one person, so you can easily figure out why the foot hurts. In the latter case, there are more people with more guns. Without perfect information distributed among the operators, this is clearly a more dangerous situation and diagnosing/repairing is more difficult and time intensive. I believe we are really talking about the first case. Secondly, some of the issues of scaling l2 infrastructure have been addressed by VLANs, allowing the separation of traffic into groups of VLAN participants. This reduces the scope of an L2 problem to the VLAN in use. Since the role of the IX operator is to provide a safe stable scaleable etc. interconnection environment, distributed VLANs are a tool that can help extend the peering population while mitigating the risk of any single ISP from wrecking the peering infrastructure. Bill randy
|