[169565] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Tue Mar 4 00:14:15 2014
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:02:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <1393908561.37682.YahooMailNeo@web181604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Eric A Louie wrote:
> Honestly?=A0 Because the end-customers are not technically competent=20
> enough to run dual-homed BGP, and we don't want to be their managed=20
> service providers on the IT side.=A0 And announcing the AT&T space is fin=
e=20
> until something goes wrong, and I have to troubleshoot the problem=20
> (Customer - "How come AT&T is down, and we're not getting inbound=20
> traffic to our servers?", and I discover L3 or CenturyLink isn't=20
> accepting my advertisement for some weird reason, but they won't fess up=
=20
> to it for a few frustrating hours)
If they're not technically competent enough to handle BGP, they won't be=20
technically competent enough to deal with solutions that play the short=20
DNS TTL game.
As someone else mentioned in this thread - would colocating the servers be=
=20
a workable solution for them? Put the servers some place where the=20
redundancy exists already.
jms
