From: Martin Hannigan (no email)
Date: Wed Feb 08 2006 - 00:00:30 EST
At 11:27 PM 2/7/2006, Nick Feamster wrote:
>Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>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.
Nick:
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<
>-Nick
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
|
|
|