[39573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When will 128M not be enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nipper, Arnold)
Sun Jul 15 21:15:31 2001
Message-ID: <001401c10d94$b96a0ae0$0190a8c0@nipper.de>
From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de>
To: "mike harrison" <meuon@highertech.net>,
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: "Andy Walden" <andy@tigerteam.net>, <jlewis@lewis.org>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:14:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
mike harrison schrieb:
> > peering with another major provider? Do you just send half of your
traffic
> > to that provider to nowhere? If you want fault tolerance against
> > connectivity losses, you need full routes.
>
> I tried partial... after changing which upstream provider was
> my 'default route' a few times I quickly realized this was
> stupid. Ram and CPU is cheap enough to make full routes,
> even on a Cisco, a VERY desirable thing.
>
Upgrading a 2650 to 128MB for USD 5,700 is not just cheap. The box itself is
around USD 3,300 ...
Arnold
