[40995] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Tue Aug 28 10:33:21 2001
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:32:59 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010828103259.A33536@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ussenterprise.ufp.org>,
nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GCEEKJFMELAOEDFALPMNCEIIDCAA.mark@amplex.net>; from mark@amplex.net on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:56:51PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:56:51PM -0400, Mark Radabaugh - Amplex wrote:
> The only reason we multihomed to 2xT1 rather than adding additional
> capacity with our first provider lack of clue. Minimum downtime for ANY
While there is a great lack of clue in many locations, don't forget
the bean counters/marketing/sales.
In an outage, virtually all ISP's prioritize customer restoriation,
and sometimes the quality of the engineer working the incident by
the size of the circuit (which presumably translates into $$$'s,
but that's a whole different tarball). Thus, one could conclude
that the lowest speed circuits get the "worst" service, and thus
those with the smallest bandwidth needs have the largest need to
multihome.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
