On vrijdag, aug 15, 2003, at 17:55 Europe/Amsterdam,
Michael.Dillon () radianz com wrote:
Perhaps the lesson to learn is that very large networks don't
always>> lead to very high stability. A much larger number of
autonomous generation and transmission facilities might have
reasonable interconnection requirements, and hence less wide-
ranging>> failure modes.
And if we extrapolate that lesson to IP networks it implies that any
medium to large sized organization should do their own BGP peering
and multihome to 3 or more upstream network providers.
While this certainly has its advantages, I don't think it follows
Joe's remarks. What would follow is having many smaller transit
networks rather than a few big ones. But I think in this regard IP
well ahead of the electricity people.
Still, I don't think it's this simple, as the problem with power
that supply and demand must be the same at all times. So if a
chunk of the network that connects the two goes down, the supply
gets into trouble because they're suddenly generating too much. If
difference is big enough it's probably impossible to arrive at a
equilibrium above 0 fast enough. If you connect everything
can absorb bigger imbalances but then when you get one you can't
absorb, the impact is larger of course.
Fortunately in our business we have queues to smooth the spikes in
network use and when we drop packets there are no sparks.
Perhaps we should start working on a hierarchical routing system in
which the concept of a "global routing table" cannot develop.
Perhaps> announcements and withdraws should have a TTL so that
propogate very far from their source AS?
Have a look at the work going on in the IETF multihoming in IPv6
(multi6) working group and the IRTF routing working group.