[26114] in North American Network Operators' Group
multi-homing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dana Hudes)
Sun Dec 5 09:30:17 1999
Message-ID: <004601bf3f25$9ef59e20$3d5cdcd1@hudes.org>
From: "Dana Hudes" <dhudes@panix.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:35:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players. =
Indeed, remember the big fight
over Exodus peering arrangements? Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus =
should pay them for transit
and pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the =
result was that GTE customers
were inconvenienced more than Exodus customers.=20
The message is loud and clear. If you want your server farm to have good =
access, put it in a good co-location
facility in the US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a =
very large provider who has good redundancy not only of their network as =
a whole but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN =
circuit does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is exceedingly =
good and fault-tolerant etc.).
Outside the US, the filtering of long prefixes doesn't seem to be as =
much of a problem -- but nobody wants to see an announcement from their =
peer of a /16 broken into individual /24 all with the same next hop.
Even when router memory and CPU capacity are not near limits, it is =
annoying.
(sorry that the previous version went out in MIME format, I had replied =
to someone else's MIME formatted message).
=20
Dana
