nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER
From: Christopher McCrory <chrismcc () pricegrabber com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:33:48 -0800
Hello... On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 22:12 -0500, Matt Buford wrote: <snip>
In general, I'm skeptical that it is really providing much of a performance boost. However, it does a good job at balancing traffic levels and that is the main value we get from the product. It was basically a "fire and forget" system. Once installed, we were able to just forget about traffic engineering and only touch things when adding/removing a link (or for special situations like manually routing around bad paths). If you'd like technical information about how it works or the potential scaling issues that can result let me know what you're interested in and I can expand a bit.
Can you expand a bit on how it dealt with the Level3 meltdown last month? -- Christopher McCrory "The^W One of the guys that keeps the servers running" chrismcc () pricegrabber com http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.
Current thread:
- Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Drew Weaver (Nov 09)
- Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Matt Buford (Nov 09)
- Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Tom Sands (Nov 10)
- Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Christopher McCrory (Nov 10)
- Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Matt Buford (Nov 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Mulrooney, Patrick (Nov 09)
- Re: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER Matt Buford (Nov 09)