[144895] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Sep 20 16:05:13 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110920191822.GA9818@hiwaay.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:05:05 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> =08Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> said:
>> In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was =
written. Jon very clearly states that if the GRE tunnel goes over the =
same physical infrastructure, it is not multihoming. Then you go on to =
explain how you have two physical lines.
>=20
> Devil's advocate: if you have links to two carriers, but they are
> delivered via the same LEC on the same fiber, are you multihomed? =
What
> about if you have two LECs at your facility, but the two circuits =
share
> a common path elsewhere (outside of your knowledge)?
Fair question.
As a customer, if your two transit circuits are in the same conduit, I =
do not consider that redundant.
However, I believe the spirit of the NRPM is clear. Two circuits in the =
same conduit would qualify, one circuit with two BGP sessions does not.
As has been famously and repeatedly mentioned here and just about =
everywhere else John is subscribed, ARIN is a VERY open organization. =
If you disagree with the NRPM, or even with an interpretation of it, =
feel free to offer up new language that would better fit your view. If =
the community agrees, POOF!, you have a new rule.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
