North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
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 Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access