[144905] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Sep 20 18:27:13 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFrZoh3RW19=8DmBmu6424nJzgM2E4cUXm4DM4aSpA_thb8C3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:21:05 -0700
To: Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>>=20
>> Ok, I would propose something like:
>=20
> "full time connection to two or more providers" should be satisfied =
when the
> network involved has (or has contracted for and will have) two or more
> connections that are diverse from each other at ANY point in their =
path
> between the end network location or locations and the far end BGP =
peers,
> whether or not the two or more connections are exposed to one or more =
common
> points of failure, as long as their are any failure modes for which =
one
> connection can provide protection against that failure mode somewhere =
in the
> other connection.
>=20
> Whew :)
>=20
> I am sure someone can say it better!
>=20
> -Dorn
FWIW, two GRE tunnels over the same physical tail circuit to different
providers on the other side would satisfy that condition.
Frankly, I don't believe that your expanded definition changes anything
from the current state of affairs.
Owen
