How to achieve application reliability

James Smith jsmith at
Sun Dec 5 17:34:09 UTC 1999

	First, Unix is the only way to go. :)  Second, what do you
suggest instead of a /19?

James Smith, CCNA
Network/System Administrator

2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203
Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5         
Tel:   905-829-3389 (email preferred)
Fax:  905-829-5692
1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676)

On 5 Dec 1999, Sean Donelan wrote:

> On Sat, 04 December 1999, James Smith wrote:
> > Our only alternative is to eliminate every single-point failure with stuff
> > like high availability clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups,
> > nuclear reactors, physical separate sites on different planets, etc. :-)
> > (Pardon me, it's 2:00am and I'm getting punching)
> If you are using Microsoft products in your nuclear reactor, its not going
> to be very reliable.  They aren't designed for that purpose.
> The tools exist to make very reliable network applications, but we can't
> force people to use them.  So long as applications neglect to use the other
> information provided by the network, they are going to be vulnerable to
> single points of failure.
> Multiple A records exist for a reason.  Even if you have high availability
> clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups, multi-homing, multi-sites; if
> you are depending on a single global network announcement there is nothing
> to prevent another ISP from announcing the same prefix with a shorter AS
> path length, and effectively blackholing your network.  For people with
> ultra-high reliablility requirements, a /19 isn't the solution.

More information about the NANOG mailing list