[Date Next]
[Thread Prev]
[Thread Next]
Re: towards turning up bgp...
- To: not-rr@town.hall.org
- Subject: Re: towards turning up bgp...
- From: Marten Terpstra <marten@BayNetworks.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:31:57 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:47:43 EST. <199601102047.PAA07791@excelsior.reston.mci.net>
- Reply-To: not-rr@town.hall.org
- Sender: owner-not-rr@town.hall.org
"John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@mci.net> writes * * marten, * * without knowing the AS or having anything in the registry, * there's little i can do w/ bgp in advance. you're in the * pipeline procedurally, thanks to nancy, and that's the * hardest part... ;-)
I understand.
* to be specific about routing, you wanted full routes, right? * so you'll use us to get to people who you don't peer with * directly? speaking of that, is anyone persuing peering * agreements at mae-east? 10meg should be adequate for the * near-term, but during some of the big projects, we might * start getting collisions on the ethernet if you're using us * to get everywhere
Yes. My plan was the following. Get the DC routers up and running taking all routes from you folks. Then slowly merge in the existing connection to UUnet and use them directly for their customers. Then arrange backup default connectivity through UUnet and then merge in other peers we may have at mae-east.
Since there are only two devices on the ethernet, I am not too worried about collisions on the ethernet. We can always do a nasty thing and add a second ethernet, where one ethernet would take traffic in one direction and the other in the other direction. That would eliminate collisions almost completely. I think I just invented a new term, full-duplex ethernet ;-)
-Marten
[Date Prev]
[Date Next]
[Thread Prev]
[Thread Next]