Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
stephen.griffin at rcn.com
Wed Apr 4 23:31:24 UTC 2001
In the referenced message, Gary E. Miller said:
> Yo Stephen!
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Stephen Griffin wrote:
> > So, if people picked better providers, they wouldn't need to multihome.
> > You feel you need to multihome, because you keep picking DSL, which just
> > isn't a good choce for "mission critical applications".
> PSI could be next. They are not DSL. If I still had a PSInet connection
> I would sure want it multihomed.
I don't see how this changes anything. DSL is a subset of the "not good"
variety, not the complete set. If I had "mission critical applications"
I would probably include companies that are likely to file for Chapter 7
or Chapter 11 in the "not good" variety.
Certainly people can argue (and would probably make more headway) that
the majority of providers aren't "good enough". I would certainly advocate
for providers working for better stability through things like effective
route-filtering, and spending less money on router memory and more on
additional redundancy and infrastructure. These things would make the
need to multihome go away, reducing the cost to the end consumer (through
less incremental upgrades to support the bloat, as well as not paying for
service to multiple providers).
Unfortunately, I think many people can't see the forest for the trees,
drive up the costs for every provider, decrease stability, and on the
long term raise their own costs.
All my opinions, etc etc
More information about the NANOG