So -- what did happen to Panix?

Martin Hannigan hannigan at
Wed Feb 8 05:00:30 UTC 2006

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 at  

More information about the NANOG mailing list