nanog mailing list archives
RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
From: "Mark Borchers" <mborchers () igillc com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:31:26 -0500
Thanks. Precisely the issue. Being humans involved in this, there is a tendency to sometimes hack around a problem and then leave it in place. I know I am susceptible to this and have to be on guard against this mentality at all times. And I've seen plenty of this in various orgs. The key here is to maintain an engineering discipline and be on constant guard against 'just this once' kind of thought. There should be no negotiations with yourself. Even the best of intentions lead to massive entropy when doing hacks around issues. Temporary fixes aren't. /vijay
Setting aside the issue of abandoning media after you stop using it, a cable run based on a handshake between two tenants in a telco hotel CAN lead to nightmares when it goes down. On the other hand, if you figure out a way to document it, and have field support lined up, it may turn out to be more easily restored than an "official" interconnect. :-)
Current thread:
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?], (continued)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tony Li (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Leo Bicknell (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 06)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Mark Borchers (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Ian Dickinson (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Scott McGrath (Jul 09)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick Muldoon (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tom (UnitedLayer) (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] John Ferriby (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen Stuart (Jul 06)