mailing list archives
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan () renesys com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:00:30 -0500
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.
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 ]
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
hannigan () renesys com
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Christopher L. Morrow (Feb 04)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?, (continued)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Martin Hannigan (Feb 08)