[119134] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sun Nov 8 14:47:45 2009
To: Blake Pfankuch <bpfankuch@cpgreeley.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:23:41 MST."
<01759D50DC387C45A018FE1817CE27D757887D7174@CPExchange1.cpgreeley.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:20 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1257709579_2830P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:23:41 MST, Blake Pfankuch said:
> I wouldn't sway from the big names for your primary connections either.
This is, of course, dependent on the OP's location and budget. I know when we
were getting our NLR connection set up, there was a fair amount of "You want
40G worth of DWDM *where*?" involved, and the resulting topology was...
complicated. At least at one time, there were places where our provider was
running our link across lambdas of a subsidiary of ours, which are going across
physical fiber owned by the provider... turtles all the way down. ;)
--==_Exmh_1257709579_2830P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFK9yALcC3lWbTT17ARAu8ZAJ0VmRSUEngYdj0pNwpYyW8FPZpwqgCfVEEx
E3DoDrPkE4205Q/OJXp7EkY=
=WtKZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1257709579_2830P--
