Hi Neil, On Mon, 7 June 2004 11:18:30 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Sorry Alex, but I just don't get your point. [..] > "it all depends on your traffic levels" - Well state the > obvious Alex!
I sometimes do, I know... ;-) > You seem to forget that you +do not know+ what is behind the > interface that you peer with whether its public or private. So > one may have 4XSTM-4c interconnects with BIGPROVIDER only to find > out that when one of them goes down BIGPROVIDER can't transit the > traffic to one of the other ports. Its just another dimensioning > issue on the network which is exactly the same issue whether you > have a port private of public. The risk is _+exactly+_ the same. What is less likely to cause real trouble... a) 300 Mbit/s to $incumbent from one private link to the other b) 50 Mbit/s on a public link that goes down and the next link (same metric announced everywhere, so closest-exit) is some non- core exchange with $multinational_peer having a FastE and an E3 to its core... (from Frankfurt TIX is the best example, if by any chance you base your IGP metrics on RTT) Been there, my experience is that you get to know quickly who has the capacity and who has not. Or, to put it this way, I know what you are saying, I surely do, but really I have not seen that happen often, and when I did that was in the past only (by now) of that famous $incumbent that is here in the country I live in... not seen that very often. My experiences are all very good with doing private links mainly. Regards, Alexander _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
