ISP inbound failover without BGP

Justin M. Streiner streiner at
Tue Mar 4 02:02:17 UTC 2014

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Eric A Louie wrote:

> Honestly?  Because the end-customers are not technically competent 
> enough to run dual-homed BGP, and we don't want to be their managed 
> service providers on the IT side.  And announcing the AT&T space is fine 
> until something goes wrong, and I have to troubleshoot the problem 
> (Customer - "How come AT&T is down, and we're not getting inbound 
> traffic to our servers?", and I discover L3 or CenturyLink isn't 
> accepting my advertisement for some weird reason, but they won't fess up 
> to it for a few frustrating hours)

If they're not technically competent enough to handle BGP, they won't be 
technically competent enough to deal with solutions that play the short 
DNS TTL game.

As someone else mentioned in this thread - would colocating the servers be 
a workable solution for them?  Put the servers some place where the 
redundancy exists already.


More information about the NANOG mailing list