[144823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Mon Sep 19 23:07:52 2011
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:05:23 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1109192101350.25015@soloth.lewis.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/19/2011 6:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>> I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
>> clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
>> that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
>> heresy for some.
>
> That's not multihoming.
Really? Lets try these and see how you do:
1) One IP connection via a T-1. Second IP connection via GRE tunnel
carried on first.
2) One IP connection via a T-1 that doesn't have transit, only peering
with providers B and C. IP connections via two GRE tunnels to providers
B and C.
3) One IP connection via MPLS over T-1. Second IP connection via
different MPLS virtual circuit over the same T-1.
4) One IP connection via Frame Relay over T-1. Second IP connection via
Frame Relay over the same T-1.
5) One IP connection via a T-1. Second IP connection via a different T-1
that is multiplexed on the same DS3.
6) One IP connection via a T-1. Second IP connection via a different T-1
that is on separate physical pairs, but in the same cable bundle.
Matthew Kaufman
