mae-west route servers are both down hard

> I suppose this would be an incredibly tacky time to say I told you so?


Huh? I was completely agreeing with you. Strange that you should
call that "misleading"!

The RA services at MAE-West were never declared production because we did
not have two operational RSes deployed there.

Only a strange group of people could assign blame to MERIT
for Paul's "quite a few peerships" which failed because they
relied upon something that was not a production service,
unless they were uncharitable and asserted that it was
MERIT's duty to push back against people using it even
as an explicitly experimental service. I wouldn't.
People should be free to have unsafe peerings if they want.

Indeed, one would have to be VERY uncharitable to MERIT
because "the strength of Merit's publicity" is in itself
pretty weak. Moreover, given the countless times Vadim Antonov,
many others and I have spent saying "relying upon the RSes
and the RA is a baaaaaaaad idea" (whether you agree or not:
the pro and con side are both debatable, and arguments for
either side are forms of publicity), it's practically
not much more than sour grapes on the part of people who
never believe an iota of the argument that the current
Internet will not safely sustain large numbers of bilateral
and multilateral peerings.

The RS failure at MAE-WEST is just one example of the
problems one likely will encounter when refusing to
accept that as a current (but not necessarily permanent) reality.

However, I do welcome people's efforts to prove me wrong,
especially where such efforts advance IP routing technologies
in potentially useful ways.