[36335] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bora Akyol)
Tue Apr 3 11:20:26 2001
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:13:59 -0700
From: Bora Akyol <akyol@akyol.org>
To: Sheldon Dubrowin <dubrowin@yahoo.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <B6EF36C7.2201%akyol@akyol.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010403101514.A4998@yahoo.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I fail to see how this helps reliability in the case of ISP "routing
instability" I believe that last year one large ISP lost almost all of its
Bay Area connectivity and had a network meltdown due to "routing
instabilities" (whatever that means).
If you are running a mission critical network, I think you have no choice to
be multi-homed to at least two ISPS preferably not residing on the same
conduit that they both lease from the same transport network.
Bora
> From: Sheldon Dubrowin <dubrowin@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:15:14 -0400
> To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
> Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>, nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
>
>
> I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still
> get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on
> the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will
> deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs. This only creates
> entries in the internal routing. I agree, that having two seperate ISPs is
> usually the best answer, but if ISPs were reliable enough perhaps two links
> to the same ISP would be enough for some places.
>
> Shel
>
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:50:37PM -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a
>>>> bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed
>>>> that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos
>>>> are multi-homed, in spades.
>>>
>>> You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs,
>>> in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I
>>> bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm
>>> astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I
>>> expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a
>>> Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy.
>>
>> Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium
>> requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what
>> you need... Curses...
>>
>> You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet,
>> for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require.
>>
>> --
>> Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
>> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ,-~~-.___. ._.
> / | ' \ | |"""""""""| Sheldon M. Dubrowin
> ( ) 0 | | |
> \_/-, ,----' | | |
> ==== !_!--v---v--"
> / \-'~; |""""""""| dubrowin@yahoo.com
> / __/~| ._-""|| | www.shelnet.org
> =( _____|_|____||________|
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
