[119185] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Nov 9 12:37:55 2009
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:39:34 GMT."
<4AF81B96.4030303@memetic.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:42 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1257788202_3564P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:39:34 GMT, Adam Armstrong said:
> Sure, if you want to hand over your entire profit margin to a 3rd party.
> Do you really want to give away the keys to your business, and rely
> entirely upon a third party organisation? Better to acquire the skills
> which are vital to your organisation yourself.
Umm.. You did that *anyhow* the instant you paid somebody else to run the
cables to your location rather than dig your own ditches. Similarly for
electricity and everything else you don't create yourself.
> > NOTE: I am not an employee, or paid affiliate of packet exchange... I
> > have used them for services and am promoting them due to my own good
> > experiences with their services.
> >
> I used to work for them. Then as now, I honestly can see little purpose
> in their productset.
There's little purpose if you're an ISP that's supposed to be good at BGP
yourself. If however, your business is running a /24 worth of webservers that
sells your company's product, and Best Practices says you should be multi-homed
but the in-house skill set runs more to Apache than BGP, a well-designed BGP
appliance can be a ghodsend.
(I admit I missed the OP's statement of what business line they were in).
--==_Exmh_1257788202_3564P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFK+FMqcC3lWbTT17ARAi6kAJsH5VqROxuLJRWW4lEOYGxdkXHlWACgtD7g
wIFxDi+dZuYxZwsE+3jTKTo=
=/zki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1257788202_3564P--
