On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon@bt.com wrote: > > having full routes from multiple providers was the only way > > to be automatically protected. > > Not so. Anyone who had sufficient transit was also protected from > the games. And they shielded their customers as well. Michael, how are these two statements not in agreement? It looks to me like you're saying the same thing: A network which claims "tier 1" status by failing to buy any transit, subjects its customers to connectivity failures when depeering happens, while a normal multi-homed network does not inflict that failure upon its customers. Isn't that what you're both saying? Disclaimer: this is my first posting of the morning, thus it's inevitably dunderheaded or offensive, for which everyone has my apologies in advance. -Bill