FATPipe vs. BGP

Fri Jan 4 15:08:27 UTC 2002

F5 announced a new product which will apparently accomplish the same thing,
although there are no technical documents available for it yet...

http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html
<http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html> 

-Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith at PRESIDIO.com]
Sent: January 3, 2002 5:43 PM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: FATPipe vs. BGP

Anyone deploy FATPipe boxes yet? Just got through a preso about it, they
bill it as a highly survivable VPN solution, but also as a way of getting
multiple inbound/outbound/backup pipes to work from multiple providers
without having to use BGP.

They actually use DNS with a short TTL (under 10 seconds) to do the failover
on inbound. With failover related to TTL, I can guess which way the users
want the knob to turn...

My concern is the need for the box to be your primary (authoritative) DNS in
this role, with no secondary DNS support (available in the 2.0 release, I
was told). No need to tell me how bad of an idea this is, what I'm looking
for is actual "by golly, we did it, and this is what we ran into" stories.
Especially from multi-site, multi-sub-domain sites.

I bet it is a pain to keep all those primary DNS servers in sync... 

http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com <http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com>  

James H. Smith II  NNCDS NNCSE 
Systems Engineer 
The Presidio Corporation 
<include> fancy.sig 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020104/32d86105/attachment.html>