Hi, Besides Ronny's great idea i only got 2 responses to this discussion.
One was if i could not get into trouble and the other one is 'what if you cant route your traffic through the uixp anymore' Well, sorry, i think its a cool idea. I would test it out if i got the full picture on my own little DNS server. But with pessimists like this, we're not getting anywhere. I'll leave http://google.mountbatten.net switched on for the few people who also think its a nice trick. -- rgds, Reinier Battenberg Director Mountbatten Ltd. +256 758 801 749 www.mountbatten.net On Monday 26 July 2010 19:35:48 you wrote: > On Monday, July 26, 2010 07:22:19 pm Reinier Battenberg > > wrote: > > well, you could also opt to put a tiny tiny bit more > > effort in your UIXP link (and actually push for the > > purchase of that new inverter, for example?) > > The exchange point's uptime is not the issue. The issue is > what happens when you can't run your traffic over the > exchange point path anymore? > > > Besides that, the UIXP is by *far* more stable than the > > SEACOM link that most people are routing their google > > traffic over now. > > Yes, and if there is a problem with using the exchange point > to move data, your Google request will now have to travel > the globe, twice, just to get to the ISP that handles IP > address you're serving up to customers. > > And make no mistake - there will be a reason as to why you > can't run your traffic over the exchange point anymore. > > > Dont downplay the powers people have. Over the UIXP all > > ISP have control, over SEACOM & TEAMS, they dont. > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > > > If you > > dont like the UIXP uptime (and there is very little > > reason to do that, but still), just improve it. Any ISP > > can do that. > > Again, this isn't about the exchange point's uptime. It's > about what happens to your user traffic when you can no > longer move traffic across the exchange point. > > > (and of course this is a total hack, but hacking is fun. > > and this hack might even make clients happy. Or just > > members of this list that implement this themselves.) > > Hacking is all good and well, but my customers are paying me > real money, and I don't want to "hack around" with their > service on a resource as popular as www.google.com. > > For something like this, if you want to do it for your > customers, do it properly. > > Mark. _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
