Yet, it is reasonable that people expect x % of their traffic to use IX's. If those IX"s are gone then they will need to find another path, and may need to upgrade alternate paths. I guess the question is. At what point does one build redundancy into the network. I suspect its a balancing act between reducancy, survival (network) and costs vs revenues. not sure I'd call it a "poor job" for not planning all possible failure modes, or for not having links in place for them. On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:00:40PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On fredag, sep 6, 2002, at 21:57 Europe/Stockholm, Tim Thorne wrote:
OK, what if 60 Hudson, 25 Broadway, LinX and AmsIX were all put out of commission?
To some extent - nothing for the above...if design right. The major networks should have designed their networks to route around this. If not - they have done a poor job. For others, the exchange points should be a way merely to off-load their transit connections.
However - there is a point in what you are saying, from a national point of view - the exchange points should independently take care of traffic in the case a nation is isolated. But I don't think any of the above are designed for that in the first place...
- kurtis -