|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: multi-homing fixed
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Alex Bligh wrote: > I think what is being questioned by many and various is ... > (c) whether there are other technologies which cost less > in total, and/or attribute cost more directly to those > who benefit from it. Much of the other discussion on this topic seems to assume that effective multihoming means that you have a prefix which is in every BGP route table throughout the Internet. This is simply not required. There are degrees of multihoming. Let me chime in with one: A modest operation which requires multihoming can select two providers according who meet the following criteria: 1) Connectivity to each provider is available and cost-effective 2) The two providers meet somewhere else 3) Both providers agree to provide you with address space 4) Both providers agree to let you announce your allocation 5) Both providers agree to specifics from you and from each other The rest of the world can filter your specifics and you still have very good redundancy. If you think through the realistic failure modes, they are few and manageable. (That includes telecom failures, network congestion, BGP failures, business failures.) The rest of the world (which you are not paying) is free to listen to your specifics if their infrastructure can handle the routes, or to filter them to protect the stability of their networks. Your reliability and connectivity will not be fundamentally threatened. -Steve Dashbit - The Leader In Internet Topology www.dashbit.com www.traceloop.com
|