[85943] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi homing pressure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Dupuy)
Wed Oct 19 13:07:58 2005
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:05:28 -0500
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list@socket.net>
In-Reply-To: <A329773B-2E3A-40DE-A6B1-482F4104383C@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>For the customer with an Internet "mission critical app", being tied
>to a Tier 2 has it's own set of problems, which might actually be
>worse than being tied to a Tier 1.
The key word is "might". In fact, I would posit that a Tier 2 with multiply
redundant transit to all of the Tier 1s could theoretically have better
connectivity than an actual Tier 1. The Tier 2 transit provides flexibility
that the transit-free Tier 1s do not have. Just my opinion.
Anyway, it has been my experience that most (but not all) of the customers
that want to "multihome" are _really_ wanting either: A. geographic/router
redundancy. or B. easy renumbering. Geographic redundancy can be done
within a single AS and IP block. They just don't know to ask it that way.
(And easy renumbering will eventually be solved with v6. Eventually.)
The demand for multi-homing might not be as great as suspected.
John
