--On måndag, måndag 1 dec 2008 11.53.58 -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily than direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not be mission critical. Treating it as such raises the cost, and therefore barrier to entry, which lowers its value.
Yes. I do not disagree. The alternates that popped up and made Netnod switch to Ethernet from SRP were most welcome. SRR mode on that ring was not funny, btw.
Of course knowing where the fiber is does not stop the backhoes. It was obvious you were being silly, so I ignored it.
Ok. Indeed.
By that logic, providers should not check any fiber path they purchase because it will not stop the backhoes. I suspect most providers will continue to buy from multiple providers, check the paths themselves, ensure grooming onto a single path is not a problem, and several other perfectly valid operational best practices which are impossible at NetNod.
Netnod with the help of Stokab can guarantee that the two paths to switches A and B are diverse. It is a normal requirement one can make (at a cost, but that is to be expected) when sourcing Stokab fibre. They know where their stuff is and understand the importance of getting it properly separated. Other providers in Sweden are similar. I have no reason not to trust them, having seen the inside of several large calls for tender on dispersed path plants, with fibre paths well documented. That the path of the last mile to the cave is hidden and secret is a very small problem.
OTOH: My paragraph above yours is a serious consideration, which you have blithely ignored.
Not so anymore, if I've understood correctly. Drop this dead horse? -- Måns Nilsson M A C H I N A Hello, GORRY-O!! I'm a GENIUS from HARVARD!!