|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: multi-homing
PS. The ONLY provider I can get to my Colorado Springs facility (Black Forest) is USWest/Qwest. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Roeland M.J. Meyer > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 11:01 AM > To: 'Alex Rubenstein'; 'Dana Hudes' > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: multi-homing > > > > No, but it depends on the capacity requirements. We looked > into self-homed > vs. colo. Given that; > 1) Most eCommerce projects need to be completed inside of six months. > 2) Connectivity needs to happen in the first 3 weeks of > project kick-off. > 3) Telco WAN circuit delivery, for large capacity, takes > anywhere from 6 to > 18 weeks per circuit (depending on RBOC ... could be MUCH longer). > 4) Facility build-out takes even longer (3 to 6 months). > > For large capacity sites, colo is the only way, with > potential self-homing > within two years. It just can't happen faster than that. Also, smaller > providers are out, because of public peering point congestion > and that is > usually their only avenue. Large providers, with their own private > dark-fiber network, leaving only last-mile traffic to the > public Internet, > appears to be the only way to go <sigh>. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > Alex Rubenstein > > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 9:54 AM > > To: Dana Hudes > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: multi-homing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Dana Hudes wrote: > > > > > > > > The pressure is on to use co-location service only from > Big Players. > > > Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements? > > > Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and > > > pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the > > > result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus > > > customers. The message is loud and clear. If you want your server > > > farm to have good access, put it in a good co-location > > facility in the > > > US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a very large > > > provider who has good redundancy not only of their network > > as a whole > > > but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one > > WAN circuit > > > does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is > > exceedingly good and > > > fault-tolerant etc.). > > > > I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a > huge, national > > tier-1). > > > > Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller > > company, that is > > potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has > > better pricing, > > and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones? > > > > > > > > > >
|