Route table growth and hardware to the filter

Bill Woodcock woody at
Sun Sep 23 14:38:04 UTC 2007

        On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon at 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 mailing list