Replacement for Avaya CNA/RouteScience

Ross Vandegrift ross at
Fri Jul 4 14:38:03 UTC 2008

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:36:27PM -0400, Christian Koch wrote:
> i definitely see value in appliances like the fcp and route science box, i
> just think for a smaller provider it may not be necessary - or maybe i have
> it backwards,and it is a better solution for a smaller provider so they
> don't have to waste money on highly skilled engineers? maybe i am just
> thinking "inside" the box at the moment, from an engineers view..if so my
> apologies for steering off course

The FCP stinks at managing blackholing.  There's supposedly new code
on the way to help with some of the blackhole avoidance, but I'll
believe it when I see it.  It can only really control the outbound
path, so if someone else chooses a path to me that blackholed between
us, there's not a lot it can do.

On the other hand, the best value of the FCP is commit management.  It
does a fantastic job of making sure we pay the least amount of money
to our tranit providers.  No more manual balancing of traffic frees up
a lot of time, and having an automatic process for it means that we
never exceed commit on links that we don't have to.

The FCP produces lovely graphs and charts that describe this, which is
probably why people accuse it of being too PHB-friendly.  But Internap
wasn't stupid - one of those pretty charts is cost savings the FCP has
accumulated this month vs. the natural BGP decision.

For a network with a heavy outbound bias, that quickly adds up to a
decent chunk of change.


Ross Vandegrift
ross at

"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
	--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37

More information about the NANOG mailing list