[47695] in North American Network Operators' Group
Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Smith)
Fri May 10 09:48:54 2002
Message-ID: <171DAAD54475984F8F41345A0945DF9CEFDCEB@hqexchange.presidio.com>
From: James Smith <jsmith@PRESIDIO.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1F829.5B562EDB"
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_01C1F829.5B562EDB
Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do?
>
>Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure
>non-redundant network.
>
>Steve
>
=============================================
Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term
costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total
reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of
that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call.
I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some sort of "total
reachability". Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe
into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that
the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a
"reachability" guarantee?
James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE
Systems Engineer
The Presidio Corporation
So I'm top posting. Sue me.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1F829.5B562EDB
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>> I apologize in advance, I'm a total =
newbie...so what did you have to do?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Build resilience into his single homed, single =
point of failure</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>non-redundant network.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Steve</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Maybe it is possible he made a business decision =
based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. =
the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion =
that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient =
reason to multihome. His call.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I think we all assume that our provider =
"guarantees" us some sort of "total reachability". =
Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their =
network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the =
situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a =
"reachability" guarantee?</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Systems Engineer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Presidio Corporation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>So I'm top posting. Sue me.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1F829.5B562EDB--
