RE: Assigning AS [7:85409] posted 03/09/2004
- Subject: RE: Assigning AS [7:85409]
- From: "Peter van Oene" <pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:35:57 GMT
At 10:22 PM 3/8/2004, Peter van Oene wrote:
> >And multihoming is better than nothing. But is not as good as
> >BGP to 2 providers. Even if you multihome to 2 pop's you only
> >as good as the SINGLE providers network. 2 Pops may protect you
> >from layer1/2 failure, but not layer 3.
>Given tonights Cognac was better than normal, I missed this
>point. Multi-homing to different POPs protects you against far more than
>circuit failures. Unless 100 routes find their way into the IGP, very
>little wrecks big SP nets beyond a POP. Most of what you run into are box
>failures, circuit failures, operator dork ups of boxes, operator dork up of
>boxes, and occasionally some box specific black holing (bad routes / pfe
>state etc) Or, enviro issues that mess up entire pops (ie power out and no
>one bothered to check for diesel) In all of these cases, you other circuit
>(physically separate of course) to another pop bails you out.
That should be 100k ;-)
> >If given the choice, after running it for 4 years, BGP would always
> >be the way to go.
> >And NRF, when I learned BGP, ISP BGP guys were still making six digits,
> >more than my place was paying. But don't worry, I know BGP pretty dam well
> >now anyway, so those guys can sit tight in Bangalore, I'm okay.
> >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Message Posted at:
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html