[41091] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Aug 29 14:31:37 2001
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:32:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E15buEr-0004qk-00@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <20010829202515.O977-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> > how many providers have multiple POP's in a city that are _completely
> > redundant_? That is, they can operate _fully_ with one POP out of
> > service?
> none can operate *fully*, as a customer access line pretty much has to
> terminate in a single router which can, and eventually will, fail.
> but, most large providers have more than one pop in the largest cities,
> bay area, nyc, dee cee, etc. and those pops are redundantly and diversely
> wired. if not, don't buy from them. life can be simple.
So we don't want to force networks in the default-free zone to buy bigger
routers with more memory, but it's ok to force them to essentially build a
second network by having redundant pops in every city?
I'm sure the router vendors and colo builders would love this idea, but I
don't think throwing hardware at the problem will help in the long run.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
