Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
woody at pch.net
Sun Sep 23 14:38:04 UTC 2007
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> > having full routes from multiple providers was the only way
> > to be automatically protected.
> Not so. Anyone who had sufficient transit was also protected from
> the games. And they shielded their customers as well.
Michael, how are these two statements not in agreement? It looks to me
like you're saying the same thing: A network which claims "tier 1" status
by failing to buy any transit, subjects its customers to connectivity
failures when depeering happens, while a normal multi-homed network does
not inflict that failure upon its customers. Isn't that what you're both
Disclaimer: this is my first posting of the morning, thus it's inevitably
dunderheaded or offensive, for which everyone has my apologies in advance.
More information about the NANOG