nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering is a lot of work.
From: Bradley Dunn <bradley () dunn org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:51:53 -0500 ()
I think this is due to the fact that Kent consults for PacBell NAP, which is ATM, which requires a PVC between peers. The PVC is setup only if both parties agree, it is torn down if one dissents. Obviously things are different at a FDDI NAP. -BD On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Justin W. Newton wrote:
At 10:25 AM 10/29/96 -0800, Kent W. England wrote:But that still begs the question of adequate defenses against default-pointing and other bad effects and the business plan which still calls for all of this to go away.One can point default at someone whether or not they are peering with the person. I am somewhat confused by the thought that people believe that they need to be peering with someone to have that person point default at them. I could (I don't, but I could), point default at /anyone/ on the same switch fabric as me, whether they are peering with me or not. Why do people continue to tie these 2 issues together?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Peering is a lot of work. Kent W. England (Oct 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Justin W. Newton (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Bradley Dunn (Oct 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Doug Sheppard (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Jon Zeeff (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Noam Freedman (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Warren Williams (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Tim Salo (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering is a lot of work. Kent W. England (Oct 29)