[142371] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP Design question.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Thu Jun 23 11:45:51 2011
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:44:41 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <41968.1308837540@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
HaHa! I agree with keeping it simple. I keep my routers simple. I keep
my switches simple. Sometimes it's not as easy on a Layer 7 FW or a load
balancer. So plan accordingly. :)
-Hammer-
On 06/23/2011 08:59 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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. ;)
>
