|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:14:36 -0500 From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>, "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <238A6242-64BC-11D9-BF97-000D93B24C7A@isc.org> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On 1/12/05 12:05 PM, "Joe Abley" <jabley@isc.org> wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > >>> You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers. >> >> Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than >> your OC3 provider. > > I realise that's what you meant. > > My point was that competing, differently-named and > organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use > common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, > etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers > doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure. > > > Joe > Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is to request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong... - Dan --
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |