[50392] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: solving problems instead of beating heads on walls
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Knowles)
Sat Jul 27 14:55:29 2002
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.BSF.4.44.0207271043080.6514-100000@thunder.xecu.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:48:26 +0200
To: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>, Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc: Joe Provo <joe.provo@rcn.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 10:56 AM -0400 2002/07/27, Andy Dills wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any
>> RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?
>
> The best solution is just as everybody here has suggested. Use the same
> provider for transit at both locations, announce your /20 normally, and
> your more specifics with no-export.
I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance here (and my stupidity in
stepping into a long-standing highly charged argument), but I'm
completely missing something. For reasons of redundancy &
reliability, even if you were to buy bandwidth in only one location,
wouldn't you want to buy it from at least two different providers?
If you buy bandwidth from two different providers at two
different locations, this would seem to me to be a good way to
provide backup in case on provider or one location goes
Tango-Uniform, and you could always backhaul the bandwidth for the
site/provider that is down.
So, what am I missing?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
