nanog mailing list archives
Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
From: vijay gill <vgill () vijaygill com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:15:55 -0400
--On Tuesday, July 06, 2004 08:46 -0400 Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls, and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way to think about it.
[snipped]
I believe the problem Vijay is referencing isn't "throw it over the wall", but rather where people have to hide the fact that they are throwing it over the wall. When some colo providers want to do things like charge a 0-mile local loop for a fiber across the room people think it's too much, and run their own "over the wall" fiber. However since it's technically not allowed it's hidden, unlabeled, abandoned when unused, and creates a huge mess.
Thanks. Precisely the issue. Being humans involved in this, there is a tendency to sometimes hack around a problem and then leave it in place. I know I am susceptible to this and have to be on guard against this mentality at all times. And I've seen plenty of this in various orgs. The key here is to maintain an engineering discipline and be on constantguard against 'just this once' kind of thought. There should be no negotiations
with yourself.Even the best of intentions lead to massive entropy when doing hacks around issues.
Temporary fixes aren't. /vijay
Current thread:
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?], (continued)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tony Li (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Leo Bicknell (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 06)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Mark Borchers (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Ian Dickinson (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Scott McGrath (Jul 09)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick Muldoon (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tom (UnitedLayer) (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] John Ferriby (Jul 08)