[192076] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Two BGP peering sessions on single Comcast Fiber Connection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul S.)
Fri Oct 14 13:34:47 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Paul S." <contact@winterei.se>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:34:38 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20161014164733.GA5892@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
+1, could not have said it better.
On 10/15/2016 01:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:48:18PM +0000, rar wrote:
>> The goal is to keep the single BGP router from being a single point of failure.
> I don't really understand the failure analysis / uptime calculation.
>
> There is one router on the Comcast side, which is a single point of
> failure.
>
> There is one circuit to your prem, which is a single point of failure.
>
> To connect two routers on your end you must terminate the circuit
> in a switch, which is a single point of failure.
>
> And yet, in the face of all that somehow running two routers with
> two BGP sessions on your end increases your uptime?
>
> The only way that would even remotely make sense is if the routers
> in question were horribly broken / mismanaged so (had to be?) reboot(ed)
> on a regular basis. However if uptime is so important using gear
> with that property makes no sense!
>
> I'm pretty sure without actually doing the math that you'll be more
> reliable with a single quality router (elminiation of complexity),
> and that if you really need maximum uptime that you had better get
> a second circuit, on a diverse path, into a different router probably
> from a different carrier.
>
