[31196] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Confussion over multi-homing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dmitri Krioukov)
Fri Sep 15 20:10:30 2000
From: "Dmitri Krioukov" <dima@krioukov.net>
To: "Alex Pilosov" <alex@pilosoft.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, "David Lott" <dlott@msncomm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:19:02 -0400
Message-ID: <NCBBIKACLKNMKDHKKKNFAEBCEPAA.dima@krioukov.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10009151829090.2550-100000@spider.pilosoft.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Alex Pilosov
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 6:31 PM
> To: Dmitri Krioukov
> Cc: Alex Pilosov; nanog@merit.edu; David Lott
> Subject: RE: Confussion over multi-homing
>
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
>
> > > 2. It only protects you from failure of a link from you to
> upstream, not
> > > from upstream losing their connectivity, power, or flapping
> like crazy and
> > > getting dampened. In my experience, latter happened more
> often than first.
> > > :)
> >
> > note that "non-direct ebgp" peering on the picture can actually
> be between
> > e-br-a and *any* router in isp-b, not necessarily isp-br-b.
> this way your
> > real problem 2 is solved.
>
> Not really. If the 'internet defaultless core' routers drop the route to
> ISP-B, then you are still completely screwed.
oh, yeah. also, if isp-b gets suddenly evaporated, then i'm
screwed even more... :)
anyway, i think it would be safe to conclude that the
answer to my initial question would be "no".
> -alex
--
dima.
