[85948] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi homing pressure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Wed Oct 19 15:28:29 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0510191212490.2952@server.duh.org>
Cc: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>, nanog@merit.edu
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:27:47 -0400
To: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 19, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
> Many customers would rather not multihome directly, and prefer "set
> it and
> forget it" connectivity. It's much easier to maintain a multi-pipe
> connection that consists of one static default route than a pipe to
> multiple
> carriers. The former requires simple physical pipe management,
> which can be
> left alone for 99% of the time. The latter requires BGP feed, an
> ASN, and
> typically much more than 1% of an employee's time to keep running
> smoothly.
Hrm, people keep saying that BGP is hard and takes time.
As well as my end-user-facing network responsibilities, I also have
corporate network responsibilities here. All of our corporate hub
locations are multi-homed (or soon will be)... and I honestly can't
remember the last time I made any changes (besides IOS upgrades) to
BGP configs for the 2 hubs in the US. (We're moving physical
locations in the "international" hubs and taking new providers, so
I'm discounting those changes as you'd have similar changes in a
single homed statically routed move).
If you don't have multihoming requirements other than availability
then it really can be fire and forget.
