Two BGP peering sessions on single Comcast Fiber Connection?

Paul S. contact at winterei.se
Fri Oct 14 17:34:38 UTC 2016


+1, could not have said it better.

On 10/15/2016 01:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:48:18PM +0000, rar wrote:
>> The goal is to keep the single BGP router from being a single point of failure.
> I don't really understand the failure analysis / uptime calculation.
>
> There is one router on the Comcast side, which is a single point of
> failure.
>
> There is one circuit to your prem, which is a single point of failure.
>
> To connect two routers on your end you must terminate the circuit
> in a switch, which is a single point of failure.
>
> And yet, in the face of all that somehow running two routers with
> two BGP sessions on your end increases your uptime?
>
> The only way that would even remotely make sense is if the routers
> in question were horribly broken / mismanaged so (had to be?) reboot(ed)
> on a regular basis.  However if uptime is so important using gear
> with that property makes no sense!
>
> I'm pretty sure without actually doing the math that you'll be more
> reliable with a single quality router (elminiation of complexity),
> and that if you really need maximum uptime that you had better get
> a second circuit, on a diverse path, into a different router probably
> from a different carrier.
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list