North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: multi-homing fixed

  • From: Steve Schaefer
  • Date: Tue Aug 28 13:11:59 2001

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.


Dashbit - The Leader In Internet Topology