Re: US-Asia Peering

["William B. Norton" <wbn () equinix com>]

At 08:14 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:

> > Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases 
> here:
> > 1)  interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs.
> > 2)  interconnecting IXes operated by different parties.
> >
> > In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there
> > is only one gun and one person, so you can easily figure out why the foot
> > hurts.
>
> well, now we know you have ever had to debug a large L2 disaster

Randy - You snipped out what I said out of context. Below is the complete 
paragraph (and admittedly I should have said "relatively easily" rather 
than "easily".) The point is that I don't think we are talking about 
interconnecting switches operated by different parties, and I think you 
would agree that if it is difficult diagnosing problems with a single large 
scale l2 fabric, it is even more difficult with multiple administrative 
domains. That was the point.

Original Paragraph:
>In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there 
is only >one gun and one person, so you can easily figure out why the foot 
hurts.
>In the latter case, there are more people with more guns. Without 
perfect >information distributed among the operators, this is clearly a 
more dangerous >situation and diagnosing/repairing is more difficult and 
time intensive. I believe >we are really talking about the first case.

Woody - I'd still like to hear about the failures "in every prior instance".

>> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
>> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
>> customers don't complain too loudly.
>> not that it's a bad long-term plan...

>Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance.

> Thanks.