North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: US-Asia Peering
At 08:14 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases here:Randy - You snipped out what I said out of context. Below is the complete paragraph (and admittedly I should have said "relatively easily" rather than "easily".) The point is that I don't think we are talking about interconnecting switches operated by different parties, and I think you would agree that if it is difficult diagnosing problems with a single large scale l2 fabric, it is even more difficult with multiple administrative domains. That was the point. Original Paragraph: >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. Woody - I'd still like to hear about the failures "in every prior instance". >> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly- >> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their >> customers don't complain too loudly. >> not that it's a bad long-term plan... >Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance. Thanks.
|