Is FRR protection good enough?

Tue Jan 12 17:45:55 UTC 2010

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:33:46 EST, Ye Wang said:

> My question is: current FRR scheme seems only guarantee network reachability
> under link/node failure, but not bandwidth (say, if my primary link is
> carrying 1Gbps, but my bypass path has a capacity of only 100Mbps, then the
> bandwidth for the traffic under failure is limited).  Do you think the
> reachability level of protection is good enough?

That's a total "it depends" question.  We've had several instances where
backhoe fade or hardware issues have killed our primary off-site link and taken
80% of our bandwidth with it, and we just put up a "The Internet Will Be Slow
For A Bit" notice and keep going, as most of our traffic is basically bulk data
transfer and we're OK as long as all the bits eventually arrive.  For other
organizations, the resulting slowdown may be totally unacceptable - if you're
doing a lot of video streaming or VoIP, it would be fatal.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100112/2accad53/attachment.sig>