nanog mailing list archives
Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <chuckie () panix com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:06:18 -0400 (EDT)
Dave Siegel writes:
Since these are designed to be regional exchanges, one would presume that transit is still available elsewhere. Even at the large carrier level, I should think that the priority NAPs, as well as the private interconnects, would contain complete information on the other networks to back up any failure to route at a regional exchange.
Er, um, well yes, but ideally if you get peering from all the big boys, you wouldn't need to purchase transit from someone. I think the idea of only exchanging local routes at any given regional exchange is not a bad idea, but I don't see how it would really end up working properly in a fluctuating environment. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - chuckie () panix com | Panix Public Access Internet and UNIX| |Network Administrator | New York City, NY | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alan Hannan (May 11)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Michael Dillon (May 11)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Erik Sherk (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Nick Williams (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Dave Siegel (May 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering John Curran (May 12)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Jonathan Heiliger (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Justin W. Newton (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alec H. Peterson (May 13)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Alec H. Peterson (May 23)
- Re: Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering Dave Siegel (May 23)