[142368] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP Design question.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jun 23 10:00:35 2011
To: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT."
<4E033531.5050604@gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:59:00 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1308837540_4530P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT, -Hammer- said:
> Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended
> downtime to save a buck or two. Redundant hardware is always a good way
> to keep Murphy out of the equation. And as far as hardware failures go,
> it's not that common. Nowadays it's the bugs in overly complicated code
> on your gear that get you first. I miss IOS 11.3.....
So what you're saying is we're more likely to take an outage due to tripping
over a bug, so we should go for the simplest non-crossover config to minimize
the chances of hitting a bug. ;)
--==_Exmh_1308837540_4530P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOA0akcC3lWbTT17ARAiP+AJ9j6Jja4/k06fJA1ayDQj4FpuggbACfaWqw
Wjcj+jFbIb2aeEnRdRr12BQ=
=qzh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1308837540_4530P--
