Proper authentication model

Hannigan, Martin hannigan at verisign.com
Wed Jan 12 17:58:43 UTC 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley at isc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:05 PM
> To: Hannigan, Martin
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Proper authentication model
> 
> 
> 
> On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 
> >> You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.
> >
> > Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than
> > your OC3 provider.
> 
> I realise that's what you meant.
> 
> My point was that competing, differently-named and 
> organisationally-separate suppliers of network services 
> frequently use 
> common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, 
> building access, 
> etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers 
> doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure.

There may be common points of failure like a carrier hotel, but I
haven't been told I couldn't see loop or longhaul maps when planning
a circuit, except when buying from other than a carrier[1] or tier2.
Primary and protect should be geographically seperated and if
your carrier isn't buying access to BOTH conduits in your entrance
facility, you should ask why. I just don't usually see this problem
and I've *never* not  been able to get into a facility remotely by
the diversified frame M/S method. 

If we're talking semantics, order type 2 ds0s.

[1] I'm talking RBOC tier1 for the most part. I would consider tier 1
    to be SBC, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc. Facilities based.

-M<



More information about the NANOG mailing list