North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: T3 or not to T3
In message <[email protected]>, Stan Barber writes: >> From stuff I've seen here and elsewhere I think the most important reason >> for this is congestion at NAPs making it impossible to suck (or shove) >> lots of bandwidth at anything but your provider's backbone. > >In using "NAPs" above, are you just talking about the NSF NAPs or all >interconnections? I'm not clear on the distinction -- but since the first location we want to do this would be based in San Francisco, I'm referring mostly to mae-west, the pacbell nap, and CIX. It should be relatively inexpensive to long-haul a few T1s further away from the California NAPs. (and it would be relatively expensive to move the machines... because of the people involved in maintaining them. Which is a pain, 'cause doing high-availability stuff in an earthquake zone seems silly.) >Generally for each connection to each provider, you would have to set up >BGP. Yeah, definately. But most backbones seem to have "customer routes" as an option, and if I trust them enough to get those routes correct then I will hopefully not have to bother with extreme amounts of filtering. It's pretty easy to enforce "no transit" at the packet filtering level -- only packets destined for my nets will be allowed in. Is there some other aspect of filtering I'm forgetting about? We have a dedicated and backup network engineer at any rate. The border router would be a cisco 7200 or 7500 series with 128Mb. Dean - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|