[121172] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is FRR protection good enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Jan 12 12:47:13 2010
To: Ye Wang <sandofree@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:33:46 EST."
<502a66881001120933h59ee47ccu26a3b9e13b7af139@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:45:55 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1263318355_4706P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:33:46 EST, Ye Wang said:
> My question is: current FRR scheme seems only guarantee network reachability
> under link/node failure, but not bandwidth (say, if my primary link is
> carrying 1Gbps, but my bypass path has a capacity of only 100Mbps, then the
> bandwidth for the traffic under failure is limited). Do you think the
> reachability level of protection is good enough?
That's a total "it depends" question. We've had several instances where
backhoe fade or hardware issues have killed our primary off-site link and taken
80% of our bandwidth with it, and we just put up a "The Internet Will Be Slow
For A Bit" notice and keep going, as most of our traffic is basically bulk data
transfer and we're OK as long as all the bits eventually arrive. For other
organizations, the resulting slowdown may be totally unacceptable - if you're
doing a lot of video streaming or VoIP, it would be fatal.
--==_Exmh_1263318355_4706P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLTLVTcC3lWbTT17ARAlXaAJwOaIHBz3YAxVTX8Y4Zy/vU1qPHtgCfaAtE
S3jFZkT+bGtAJo21Ra3G934=
=lx9D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1263318355_4706P--
