[38774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Opinions about InterNAP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth M. Kusiak)
Wed Jun 13 14:43:06 2001
Message-ID: <20010613184243.17985.qmail@hex.databits.net>
From: "Seth M. Kusiak" <seth.kusiak@yours4less.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:42:43 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I've been told by many that most national providers filter any prefix
greater then a /20 such as sprint and verio.
-Seth
David McGaugh writes:
> /24's are sufficient to multihome with most if not all providers out
> there. Why not conventionally multi-home to 2 large well established
> providers?
>
> -Dave
>
> "Seth M. Kusiak" wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have a small network (5 /24’s) and we need to host our web applications
>> internally because they access backend servers that absolutely cannot be
>> collocated. I am thinking about getting 2 T1’s or fractional DS3’s from
>> InterNAP from different P-NAPS (1 from Philly and 1 from NY) each circuit
>> from a different CO
>>
>> The reason that I’m thinking InterNAP is because we don’t qualify for a /20
>> and we would not be able to efficiently multi-home. It seems that InterNAP
>> is perfect in our situation because they buy transit from multiple providers
>> and claim to not have any black holes in their network.
>>
>> I hear many great things about InterNAP and I hear the opposite as well.
>>
>> Any thoughts would GREATLY be appreciated
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Seth
