Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: NANOG, its decline in s/n

  • From: Andy Dills
  • Date: Thu Aug 08 13:21:33 2002

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Derek Samford wrote:

>
> Personally, every time I post, it's from a Tier-2 perspective. This,
> honestly, changes absolutely nothing about how I build my network from a
> logical perspective. There are some minor differences, I.E. I don't own
> my own fiber, and I don't have many peering relationships. I use
> transit/transport the same as many other Tier-2's. But the best
> practices of a Tier-1 are the best practices of any other ISP
> regardless. Reinventing the wheel is, IMHO, a very bad thing. Over 90%
> of networking mistakes have already been made, and really, that's what
> NANOG is for. How many of you out there wish you had done some things
> different when you look back after rolling out a network? I think people
> should keep in mind that one of the hardest parts of network design
> isn't making it work, but making it scale properly. And generally,
> that's the advice the newer people tend to ignore. Sure other ways will
> *work*, but they generally won't scale. And the whole point of an ISP is
> to grow, right?

The whole point of an ISP is to make money. Let's not forget that.
Growing has ruined many a fine network.

The best practices of a Tier-1 (such a useless term) are NOT neccessarily
the best practices for all networks.

For instance, a few years ago, I had to bitch at UUnet for three weeks to
get them to configure per-packet CEF facing me (3 DS1s). Their first
reaction was "No, we don't run proprietary protocols on our network." When
I pointed out that I knew for a fact that they were already using CEF
switching, cisco-proprietary or not, they finally agreed to try it out
as a special circumstance, if it breaks, tough shit. Worked flawlessly
for us till we migrated to the DS3 level.

Now, it would seem like a reasonable thing for the UUnet's of the world to
have such policy, to not run proprietary protocols on their network.
(That's why they always turn up circuits with encap frame instead of
HDLC.) When you have a network of that size, such sweeping policies are
neccessary to maintain sanity. Not so for small networks.

It wouldn't make sense for a small network to give up the very flexibility
that differentiates it from the large networks.

Andy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills                              301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC                            www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.