North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
I fail to see how this helps reliability in the case of ISP "routing instability" I believe that last year one large ISP lost almost all of its Bay Area connectivity and had a network meltdown due to "routing instabilities" (whatever that means). If you are running a mission critical network, I think you have no choice to be multi-homed to at least two ISPS preferably not residing on the same conduit that they both lease from the same transport network. Bora > From: Sheldon Dubrowin <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:15:14 -0400 > To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <[email protected]> > Cc: Bill Woodcock <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers > > > I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still > get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on > the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will > deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs. This only creates > entries in the internal routing. I agree, that having two seperate ISPs is > usually the best answer, but if ISPs were reliable enough perhaps two links > to the same ISP would be enough for some places. > > Shel > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:50:37PM -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote: >>> >>>> So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a >>>> bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed >>>> that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos >>>> are multi-homed, in spades. >>> >>> You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs, >>> in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I >>> bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm >>> astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I >>> expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a >>> Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy. >> >> Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium >> requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what >> you need... Curses... >> >> You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet, >> for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require. >> >> -- >> Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras >> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ,-~~-.___. ._. > / | ' \ | |"""""""""| Sheldon M. Dubrowin > ( ) 0 | | | > \_/-, ,----' | | | > ==== !_!--v---v--" > / \-'~; |""""""""| [email protected] > / __/~| ._-""|| | www.shelnet.org > =( _____|_|____||________| > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >
|