[44958] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: FATPipe vs. BGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Watterworth)
Fri Jan 4 10:09:19 2002
Message-ID: <BE61C6476F812B429389D76D730A11D1035995@xch04ykf.rim.net>
From: Lee Watterworth <lwatterworth@rim.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:08:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19531.A9668950"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C19531.A9668950
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
F5 announced a new product which will apparently accomplish the same thing,
although there are no technical documents available for it yet...
http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html
<http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html>
-Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith@PRESIDIO.com]
Sent: January 3, 2002 5:43 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: FATPipe vs. BGP
Anyone deploy FATPipe boxes yet? Just got through a preso about it, they
bill it as a highly survivable VPN solution, but also as a way of getting
multiple inbound/outbound/backup pipes to work from multiple providers
without having to use BGP.
They actually use DNS with a short TTL (under 10 seconds) to do the failover
on inbound. With failover related to TTL, I can guess which way the users
want the knob to turn...
My concern is the need for the box to be your primary (authoritative) DNS in
this role, with no secondary DNS support (available in the 2.0 release, I
was told). No need to tell me how bad of an idea this is, what I'm looking
for is actual "by golly, we did it, and this is what we ran into" stories.
Especially from multi-site, multi-sub-domain sites.
I bet it is a pain to keep all those primary DNS servers in sync...
http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com <http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com>
James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE
Systems Engineer
The Presidio Corporation
<include> fancy.sig
------_=_NextPart_001_01C19531.A9668950
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>FATPipe vs. BGP</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=036565914-04012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>F5
announced a new product which will apparently accomplish the same thing,
although there are no technical documents available for it
yet...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=036565914-04012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=036565914-04012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><A
href="http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html">http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=036565914-04012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=036565914-04012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>-Lee</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> James Smith
[mailto:jsmith@PRESIDIO.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> January 3, 2002 5:43
PM<BR><B>To:</B> nanog@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> FATPipe vs.
BGP<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Anyone deploy FATPipe boxes yet? Just got through a preso
about it, they bill it as a highly survivable VPN solution, but also as a way
of getting multiple inbound/outbound/backup pipes to work from multiple
providers without having to use BGP.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>They actually use DNS with a short TTL (under 10 seconds) to
do the failover on inbound. With failover related to TTL, I can guess which
way the users want the knob to turn...</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>My concern is the need for the box to be your primary
(authoritative) DNS in this role, with no secondary DNS support (available in
the 2.0 release, I was told). No need to tell me how bad of an idea this is,
what I'm looking for is actual "by golly, we did it, and this is what we ran
into" stories. Especially from multi-site, multi-sub-domain sites.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>I bet it is a pain to keep all those primary DNS servers in
sync...</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2><A target=_blank
href="http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com">http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com</A></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>Systems Engineer</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The Presidio
Corporation</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><include> fancy.sig</FONT>
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C19531.A9668950--
