Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
Bora Akyol
akyol at akyol.org
Tue Apr 3 15:13:59 UTC 2001
I fail to see how this helps reliability in the case of ISP "routing
instability" I believe that last year one large ISP lost almost all of its
Bay Area connectivity and had a network meltdown due to "routing
instabilities" (whatever that means).
If you are running a mission critical network, I think you have no choice to
be multi-homed to at least two ISPS preferably not residing on the same
conduit that they both lease from the same transport network.
Bora
> From: Sheldon Dubrowin <dubrowin at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:15:14 -0400
> To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras at e-gerbil.net>
> Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody at zocalo.net>, nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
>
>
> I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still
> get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on
> the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will
> deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs. This only creates
> entries in the internal routing. I agree, that having two seperate ISPs is
> usually the best answer, but if ISPs were reliable enough perhaps two links
> to the same ISP would be enough for some places.
>
> Shel
>
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:50:37PM -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a
>>>> bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed
>>>> that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos
>>>> are multi-homed, in spades.
>>>
>>> You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs,
>>> in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I
>>> bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm
>>> astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I
>>> expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a
>>> Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy.
>>
>> Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium
>> requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what
>> you need... Curses...
>>
>> You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet,
>> for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require.
>>
>> --
>> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
>> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ,-~~-.___. ._.
> / | ' \ | |"""""""""| Sheldon M. Dubrowin
> ( ) 0 | | |
> \_/-, ,----' | | |
> ==== !_!--v---v--"
> / \-'~; |""""""""| dubrowin at yahoo.com
> / __/~| ._-""|| | www.shelnet.org
> =( _____|_|____||________|
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list