North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Chiappa blows his brains out (was Re: Policy Statement)

  • From: Noel Chiappa
  • Date: Tue Jan 30 03:23:23 1996

    From: Scott Huddle <[email protected]>

    Probably the best thing that be currently supported is getting two diverse
    connections to a single provider that can globally aggregate your network.
    The connections should go to different POPs and should follow seperate
    physical paths.  This should provide you the desired reliability and load

This solution has been pointed out before.

Also, Dorian Kim sent in a good message to the Big-Internet list talking about
reliability (the stated goal of most multi-homing), and the 7 places you could
do redundancy, and what was really important in achieving reliability, which
contained a lot of good insight. Here's his message (appended).



Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 03:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dorian Rysling Kim <[email protected]>
To: ... [email protected]
Subject: Re: Multihoming


There are many places where redundancy can be achieved with multiple 

0) Equipment spares on site
1) Diverse local access of the two links
2) Diverse routing of the physical links into COs
3) Diverse routing to different local providers
4) Diverse routing to different regional providers
5) Diverse routing to different large transit providers (MCI, Sprint, ANS, 
Alternet, Eunet etc)
6) #5 + connection to the NAPs.

All of the above give you redundancy at various single points of 
failures. In my experince, #0 - #2 should be considered as important in 
providing true redundancy as 4-6. In fact, in most cases, the most common 
case of outtages come from equipment failures, and circuits themselves, 
and sites who are looking for multihoming for the reason of redundancy 
should look at the cost of having 0-2, and think long and hard about 
whether multihoming is what they really need.