[50380] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: something
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Sat Jul 27 11:12:26 2002
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
Cc: Joe Provo <joe.provo@rcn.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0207271043080.6514-100000@thunder.xecu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > > If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different
> > > ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order?
> >
> > That brings us back to the discussion of PI space. If de-aggregating my
> > /20 didn't work, then I'd either inefficiently use IP space in order to
> > qualify for 2 /20's, or buy a defunct ISP or 2 to get a bunch of /24's in
> > the 192-223 space.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any
> > RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?
>
> Your response was something about "I guess you don't consider redundancy
> to be intelligent." What's stopping you from using the same two transit
> providers in both locations? Seems to me you don't value redundancy all
> that much.
I'm currently using Peer1 in Toronto for transit and they don't have a POP
in Ottawa.
Having 2 different transit providers in both Ottawa and Toronto has only a
marginal improvement in redundancy vs provider A in Ottawa and provider B
in Toronto. Even if I could use provider A in both Ottawa and Toronto I
wouldn't due to the reduced redundancy.
And your assumption about my Ottawa-Toronto link is wrong. I have a 100M
point-to-point ethernet link between the cities. I have a 100M transit
connection to Peer1 in Toronto, and have issued a letter of intent to a
transit provider in Ottawa for a 100M link.
-Ralph
