North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: dual router vs. single "reliable" router
--- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> wrote: > 2x the hardware means 2x the number of hardware > failures. It also means 2x > the number of software upgrades, and probably some > multiplier greater than > 2x for the increased complexity and opportunity for > software to go wrong. > Dual routers just increases the number of overall > failures in exchange for > hoping that only one goes down at any given time. The fallacy here is that the greater number of failures which a dual-router scenario will encounter are of the same Qualitative type as the failures your single router will encounter. This is clearly not true: one of a pair failing means that there will be a period of convergence, and then the remaining router will carry the load. If a single router fails, the load will not be carried until the router can be restored. > On one side of the coin, Cisco has done a masterful > job at convincing the > networking industry that the correct answer to their > routine failures is > to purchase double of everything. On the other > side... Show me the box > that never goes down. :) My point exactly: from a design perspective it's much simpler to have a single box, but I have not seen single boxen which don't fail. I'm actually a big fan of the "cold-spare" approach: you preserve your simplicity, and any outage only lasts as long as it takes to unplug and re-plug... ===== David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
|