Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection

["John M. Brown" <john () chagresventures com>]

Yet, it is reasonable that people expect x % of their traffic to
use IX's.  If those IX"s are gone then they will need to find another
path, and may need to upgrade alternate paths.

I guess the question is.

At what point does one build redundancy into the network. 

I suspect its a balancing act between reducancy, survival (network)
and costs vs revenues.

not sure I'd call it a "poor job"  for not planning all possible
failure modes, or for not having links in place for them.


On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:00:40PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> On fredag, sep 6, 2002, at 21:57 Europe/Stockholm, Tim Thorne wrote:
>
> > OK, what if 60 Hudson, 25 Broadway, LinX and AmsIX were all put out of
> > commission?
>
> To some extent - nothing for the above...if design right. The major 
> networks should have designed their networks to route around this. If 
> not - they have done a poor job. For others, the exchange points should 
> be a way merely to off-load their transit connections.
>
> However - there is a point in what you are saying, from a national 
> point of view - the exchange points should independently take care of 
> traffic in the case a nation is isolated. But I don't think any of the 
> above are designed for that in the first place...
>
>
> - kurtis -