North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: somethingabout arrogance]
> > > If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different > > > ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order? > > > > That brings us back to the discussion of PI space. If de-aggregating my > > /20 didn't work, then I'd either inefficiently use IP space in order to > > qualify for 2 /20's, or buy a defunct ISP or 2 to get a bunch of /24's in > > the 192-223 space. > > > > Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any > > RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20? > > Your response was something about "I guess you don't consider redundancy > to be intelligent." What's stopping you from using the same two transit > providers in both locations? Seems to me you don't value redundancy all > that much. I'm currently using Peer1 in Toronto for transit and they don't have a POP in Ottawa. Having 2 different transit providers in both Ottawa and Toronto has only a marginal improvement in redundancy vs provider A in Ottawa and provider B in Toronto. Even if I could use provider A in both Ottawa and Toronto I wouldn't due to the reduced redundancy. And your assumption about my Ottawa-Toronto link is wrong. I have a 100M point-to-point ethernet link between the cities. I have a 100M transit connection to Peer1 in Toronto, and have issued a letter of intent to a transit provider in Ottawa for a 100M link. -Ralph
|