Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]

2002-06-29 Thread Joe Provo
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote: [snip] > The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping > on and off magnified by multihoming punching holes in large aggregates. > > Small announcement show more churn because they are more granular. > They expa

Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]

2002-06-29 Thread Joseph T. Klein
That makes sense ... many full routing tables is fare worse than many partial routing tables. If my last resort was buying from a Tier 1 after peering out most of my traffic I would prefer "paid peering" or "partial transit". ... and one can always not listen to routes that have multiple non optim

Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]

2002-06-29 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote: > > Flat designs tend to ring like a bell when instability is introduced. > I think we held the world record for flapping at NAP.NET in 95-96. > That was a flat design executed during a time when the Cisco architecture > and softwar

interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]

2002-06-29 Thread Joseph T. Klein
Preaching to the ministers here: I would like to see more data. I don't think a network with large aggregates (some who can not peer with tier 1s due to current policies) has much impact on the global routing structure. The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping on and off