nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:24:01 -0400
On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
No, I mean: Why didn't *your upstream's* routes fall back to *their* otherpeers, who should be perfectly capable of transiting those packets?The thinly veiled implication there is that "full mesh" is not a long term effective way to run the backbone level transit, because dropping one peerwithout an alternate path means that we get broken transit. Yum.
You are very, very confused on how the Internet works.Which network do you run, sir? I find it useful to know which networks have engineers who understand not only "conf t" but also what the commands they type actually mean.
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Douglas Dever (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering william(at)elan.net (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Mike Tancsa (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Matthew Crocker (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Todd Vierling (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Matthew Crocker (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Todd Vierling (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Payne (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Todd Vierling (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Douglas Dever (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Matthew Crocker (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Alex Rubenstein (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering JC Dill (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering James Spenceley (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering andrew matthews (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering JC Dill (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Lamar Owen (Oct 06)