North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
At 11:27 PM 2/7/2006, Nick Feamster wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:My point remains: designs based on such assumptions are not a good idea, since these assumptions are by no means fundamental and could certainly change. People get creative with how they announce prefixes, change upstreams, etc., and you can't assume that things like this would stay the way they are.My answer, in short, was to say that I see it as more of an enterprise play because it's a managed service and the hardest part of provisioning is typically the order cycle. If you are an ISP, you are theoretically multi homed by definition and your providers are going to remain fairly stable (you hope) based on your own needs.
I wouldn't call them assumptions. I would call them engineering decisions in operational
environments. I guess I fail to see where a commodity market with a broker adding a vig
resolves a real network problem. I'm think tier1? They aren't buying service from anyone
on Equinix direct and move/add/drop is just another day on the Internet. I really can't see
any provider doing it, but perhaps smaller ones. *shrug*. I don't know why you wouldn't
make temporary arrangements via peering fabric, PNI, or transit and eliminate the middle
man (point of failure).
As an aside, another question occurred to me about delaying unusual announcements. Boeing Connexion offers another example of unorthodox prefix announcements. Wouldn't the tactic of delaying unusual announcements would cause problems for this service?
[ snip ] -M<
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663-Nick
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations