<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>non-redundant network.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Steve</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>=============================================</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some sort of "total reachability". Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a "reachability" guarantee?</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Systems Engineer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The Presidio Corporation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>So I'm top posting. Sue me.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>