Still, peering with ICM may be a good idea; there is no reason to bounce packets off ENSS...
Third party routes work. The packets shouldn't be bouncing off the ENSS. You just get an extra AS number in the path.
The only third-party routes i'm getting from 690 at FIX-W are from AS 60 (DARPA) and AS 568 (DCA). --vadim
Third party routes work. The packets shouldn't be bouncing off the ENSS. You just get an extra AS number in the path.
The only third-party routes i'm getting from 690 at FIX-W are from AS 60 (DARPA) and AS 568 (DCA).
--vadim
That's true. E144 is Barrnet's secondary attachment. I suppose it is up to Barrnet whether they want traffic to and from Sprintlink to go through their backup connectivity at E144 or traverse the T3 network to Hayward, and if so, how much of it they want to take that path. I don't know Barrnet's internal capacity and loading well enough to know whether a direct peering would be preferable. Curtis
participants (2)
-
avg＠titan.sprintlink.net -
Curtis Villamizar