[79912] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@radianz.com)
Mon Apr 18 04:54:14 2005
In-Reply-To: <16993.25129.183755.778135@shoggoth.uraeus.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:53:32 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> >On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to
> >one carrier and making sure that they really provide
> >separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you
> >have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down
> >the same conduit, then you do NOT have separacy and as
> >a result, the redundancy is not there.
>
> The problem with this theory is that one carrier is completely free to
> reroute your connectivity among its resources.
One carrier can only do what your contract allows them
to do. And negotiating a contract with strong requirements
for separacy is easier with one carrier than two.
> Note that many carriers, though perhaps not the LECs, will answer
> questions about the underlying resources they are using if they are
> sufficiently motivated, but you have to reask every now and again to
> make sure that the answers are still satisfactory.
Agreed.
--Michael Dillon
