solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: something about arrogance]
C. Jon Larsen
jlarsen at richweb.com
Sat Jul 27 19:51:35 UTC 2002
If he would buy transit from *2* providers in 2 cities, he'd be fine, as
he could announce the longer prefixes the rest of the internet does not
need to see on either ISP1's backbone or ISP2's backbone or both to
influence how much traffic he takes inbound on each link on each city, and
how much traffic he has to haul back across his link that connects the two
cities. If he loses the link between the cities each ISP will see the
longer prefixes, and routing should still work.
But with only 1 ISP link in each city (1 upstream) if he ever loses the
link between the two cities, he has a problem, as there is no way to
transfer traffic bound for city1 that enters city2's connection, and vice
versa.
As I said before, a gre tunnel between the 2 cities ISP connections
can serve as a backup physical link and allow traffic that comes in the
wrong city to get pushed back over to the right city. a gre tunnel will
allow the 2 routers to appear to be directly connected, and you wont get
the routing blackhole that occurs when ISPs that *dont* accept his more
precise (longer prefixes) toss the packets back toward the /20 that the
packets cam from.
Again, one needs to engineer ones network to work around one's own
failures. I.e. ask or expect don't push routes into other people's tables
because you are too cheap to buy a backup pipe, or too lazy to config a
gre tunnel.
-jon
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 10:56 AM -0400 2002/07/27, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> >> Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any
> >> RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?
> >
> > The best solution is just as everybody here has suggested. Use the same
> > provider for transit at both locations, announce your /20 normally, and
> > your more specifics with no-export.
>
> I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance here (and my stupidity in
> stepping into a long-standing highly charged argument), but I'm
> completely missing something. For reasons of redundancy &
> reliability, even if you were to buy bandwidth in only one location,
> wouldn't you want to buy it from at least two different providers?
>
> If you buy bandwidth from two different providers at two
> different locations, this would seem to me to be a good way to
> provide backup in case on provider or one location goes
> Tango-Uniform, and you could always backhaul the bandwidth for the
> site/provider that is down.
>
>
> So, what am I missing?
>
>
--
C. Jon Larsen Chief Technology Officer, Richweb.com (804.307.6939)
SMTP: jlarsen at richweb.com (http://richweb.com/cjl_pgp_pub_key.txt)
Richweb.com:
Designing Open Source Internet Business Solutions since 1995
Building Safe, Secure, Reliable Cisco-Powered Networks since 1995
More information about the NANOG
mailing list