[36422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Griffin)
Wed Apr 4 23:34:28 2001
Message-Id: <200104050331.XAA02355@elektra.ultra.net>
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039DDC@condor.mhsc.com> from Roeland Meyer at "Apr 4, 2001 05:31:08 pm"
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:31:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In the referenced message, Roeland Meyer said:
> > > You can think that way all you want to, right up to the
> > time when your local
> > > RBOC decides it will no longer serve you. At which time,
> > good luck shoving
> > > those bytes down the wire.
> >
> > I may be stupid or something, but the above doesn't appear to make the
> > least bit of sense. Do you have data that the RBOCs and CLECs
> > are moving
> > out of the circuit (DS0 on up) delivery business?
>
> No, but individual circuits go down all the time. Simply because you have a
> big name provider, doesn't mean that they will be more reliable. Only the
> reasons for the outage change.
>
> The recommendations for multi-homing remain the same.
No one has said that multiple circuits via multiple entrance facilities
via multiple carriers is a bad thing. It certainly does not affect
routing table growth. Hell, even having those circuits go to different
sites at the same provider takes care of the vast majority of issues.
The few issues left (widespread routing failures) tend to be infrequent
amongst the majority of providers.
Again, very little reason to need multiple providers if the provider
is good. If you're concerned about circuit grooming, write it into
your contract with _severe_ penalties for failure to meet the terms
of the contract.
Stephen
I speak only for myself
