<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/Feb/20 14:37,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:adamv0025@netconsultings.com">adamv0025@netconsultings.com</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:031d01d5e00e$e7058400$b5108c00$@netconsultings.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:687483379;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1238288850 134807575 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><span lang="EN-US">The “cattle” case:<o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-US">Or would you
instead rely on small-ish non-redundant HW at your internet
edge rather than trying to enhance MTBF with big chassis
full of redundant HW? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-US">Is this cause
eventually the MTBF figure for a particular transit/peering
eBGP session boils down to the MTBF of the single card or
even single optical module hosting the link, (and creating
bundles over separate cards -well you can never be quite
sure how the setup looks like on the other end of that
connection)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-US">Or is it because
the effects of a smaller/non-resilient border edge device
failure is not that bad in your particular (maybe
horizontally scaled) setup?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This, for us.<br>
<br>
We pick up transit and peering in multiple cities around the world.
The cute boxes at the time were the MX80 and ASR9001. These have
since run out of steam for us, and in many sites, our best option
was the MX480, as there was no other high-performance, non-redundant
device that made sense to us. <br>
<br>
However, just months after upgrading to the MX480, the MX204
launched. So now, we focus on the MX204 for peering and transit. <br>
<br>
It's so massively distributed that it doesn't make sense to
aggregate multiple exchange points or transit providers in a single
location. And if a device in one location were to fail, there is
sufficient coverage across the backbone to pick up the slack. We
also use separate devices for transit and peering.<br>
<br>
Of course, transit providers (and some exchange points) don't really
enjoy this model with us, as they'd like to sell us a multi-site
contract, which doesn't make any sense to us.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>