nanog mailing list archives
Re: US-Asia Peering
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:07:53 -0800
Where the same pseudo wire provider connects to say LINX, AMSIX, DECIX your only a little way off having an interconnection of multiple IXs, its possible this will occur by accident ..
and l2 networks scale soooo well, and are so well known for being reliable. is no one worried about storms, spanning tree bugs, ... in a large multi-l2-exchange environment? this is not a prudent direction. randy
Current thread:
- Re: US-Asia Peering, (continued)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering David Diaz (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jared Mauch (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Joe Provo (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Neil J. McRae (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 10)