|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed. > If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that. > > jms multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on purpose in the intarrwebbz.. meaning: all of them.. (you can never tell which ones will get the idea to depeer next, so you have to be multihomed to all of them or this can still happen) -this- time its sprint and cogent, next time it could be level3 and sprint, etc, now, do you want to multihome on all of them, just to avoid problems when they purposely and actively break the internet, or would you rather just tell them not to do it.. what should happen here is their customers just enforcing a contract change that they contractually have to make every possible effort to peer with anyone or the customers leave... you can buy shares in both companies, so its also possible to cause a riot at their shareholders meeting if this is a major problem to your connectivity, and tell them never to do that again. > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog" >
|