nanog mailing list archives
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:28:12 GMT
From mark.tinka () seacom mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:46 2016On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote: It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all three.
Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it won't be failing over to another one. Same effect
A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to experience.
The general case doesn't care about your network, it assumes you'd engineer that appropriately for the criticality and do something different/better if you need to. brandon
Current thread:
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it, (continued)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Randy Bush (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Mike Hammett (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Owen DeLong (Jan 28)