Re: NANOG, its decline in s/n

[Andy Dills <andy () xecu net>]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Rob Healey wrote:

>       I've noticed that alot of the advise given is appropriate for
>       larger, i.e. tier 1, setups but isn't necessarily as useful
>       for tier 2/3/N+1.
>
>       Things that work great in large scale might be unweildy or not
>       even feasable on a smaller scale and vice-versa.
...
>       To avoid confusion in the future it might be helpful for both
>       questioner's and answerers to mention what scale their addressing
>       in the question/answer.

I'm not so sure about that. It's kind of like the old adage... "if you
have to ask how much it costs, it's too expensive for you."

I love reading the peering papers from William Norton...but I also
recognize that for my network, transit is always going to be more
economical.

IMO, it's pretty evident when advice applies to large networks and when it
applies to small networks. How many small networks do you know of that,
for example, verify routes announced by peers with the IRR? Few if any,
because they don't have any peers big enough for that to be the solution.
You simply use ACLs.

Besides, small networks have small problems. There aren't many
unanswerable questions pertaining to the best practice for operating a
small network...but a big network? Different story.

Andy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills                              301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC                            www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access