[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
Scott Leibrand
sleibrand at internap.com
Thu Jun 29 17:58:32 EDT 2006
- Previous message: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
- Next message: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 06/29/06 at 5:52pm -0400, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote: > Hello; > > On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > I'm sorry, I made an unstated assumption that you're buying transit > > from two transit providers who don't have any transit providers of > > their own, just peers. IOW, tier 1 NSPs. Can you enumerate any > > failure modes in that case, or were you just talking about > > reachability problems for tier 2 NSPs? > > I think that any policy that relies on distinguishing between Tier 1 and > Tier 2 should be automatically out of bounds. Every time the subject > comes up on (say) NANOG it generates much heat but little light, and I > know of no tool to enable me to check independently whether or not a > salesman's claims here are accurate. I'm not proposing a policy, I'm proposing text for a "Recommended Practices" document. If we want to eliminate the "distinction" between a transit-buying and transit-free transit provider (which IMO is a valid technical distinction, egos, tier labels, and salesmen aside), then you simply need to expand the recommendation to say something like this: To multihome with PA space, you must ensure that your transit providers, and any of their transit providers (recursive), accept your /48 from each other. Still pretty simple, no? -Scott
- Previous message: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
- Next message: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list