Tore Anderson wrote: > My point here was that if the IXP is doing maintenance, it could shut > all ports to all members simultaneously, and thus get the exact same > effect as the «when someone yanks the physical connector» scenario > described in the draft.
this doesn't work because 1. some ixp participants connect their routers via intermediate switches and if all ports are yanked simultaneously, they will blackhole traffic on their side and 2. any ixp with more than one switch in their peering fabric needs to be able to performance maintenance on part of their ixp without affecting the rest. Regarding point 1, you could claim that this was the ixp participant's problem, not the IXP's, and you might even be technically right, but the erupting blamestorm would always fall back on the IXP for initiating the problem. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
