Chiappa blows his brains out (was Re: Policy Statement)
jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu
Tue Jan 30 07:34:03 UTC 1996
From: Scott Huddle <huddle at mci.net>
Probably the best thing that be currently supported is getting two diverse
connections to a single provider that can globally aggregate your network.
The connections should go to different POPs and should follow seperate
physical paths. This should provide you the desired reliability and load
This solution has been pointed out before.
Also, Dorian Kim sent in a good message to the Big-Internet list talking about
reliability (the stated goal of most multi-homing), and the 7 places you could
do redundancy, and what was really important in achieving reliability, which
contained a lot of good insight. Here's his message (appended).
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 03:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dorian Rysling Kim <dorian at cic.net>
To: ... big-internet at munnari.oz.au
Subject: Re: Multihoming
There are many places where redundancy can be achieved with multiple
0) Equipment spares on site
1) Diverse local access of the two links
2) Diverse routing of the physical links into COs
3) Diverse routing to different local providers
4) Diverse routing to different regional providers
5) Diverse routing to different large transit providers (MCI, Sprint, ANS,
Alternet, Eunet etc)
6) #5 + connection to the NAPs.
All of the above give you redundancy at various single points of
failures. In my experince, #0 - #2 should be considered as important in
providing true redundancy as 4-6. In fact, in most cases, the most common
case of outtages come from equipment failures, and circuits themselves,
and sites who are looking for multihoming for the reason of redundancy
should look at the cost of having 0-2, and think long and hard about
whether multihoming is what they really need.
More information about the NANOG