nanog mailing list archives
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:15:24 -0800
Randy Bush wrote:
Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire Internet management plane "out of band"tread caefully. we have experienced (and some continue to experience) non-linear expansion of management, control, and stability problems when layers are non-congruent.
Isn't this just a suggestion to more or less faithfully reproduce the control and bearer planes of the TDM network also? I'd think that this fate sharing aspect of the internet model is a feature rather than a bug. That is, putting everything on the same wire forces you to deal with QoS or get the predictable results. That and building out
separate and unequal networks pretty much sucks? Mike
Current thread:
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic, (continued)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Nick Hilliard (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic TJ (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Jared Mauch (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Andy Davidson (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Provo (Dec 30)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Tomas L. Byrnes (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic David Conrad (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Michael Thomas (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Jared Mauch (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dorn Hetzel (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Paul Ferguson (Dec 31)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Michael Thomas (Dec 30)