|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7AL2EB3c0e9S+pcNuvXWb1+sJiDf+rt2GVArig+qBboVA@mail.gmail.com> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Fri, 27 Dec 2013, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Everybody have critical services running on servers. DHCP, DNS, Radius and > so on are all on servers and you will be down if these services are down. > What is with the knee jerk reaction for suggesting that the BGP daemon > could also be run on a server? There seems to be many advantages of doing > it this way, and not all of them are related to cost. If you want to use servers as routers, that's your choice. I think what most people in the thread have been saying is not to use one server (or even a pair of servers) for everything. It's one thing if server XYZ goes down and some web services are offline. It's another thing entirely if that same server goes down and your entire business is offline. jms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |