On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:22:03PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
haven't thought about it for a while, but ... probably rethink my requirements a bit.
Let me give you the first two requirements: 1) Your investors won't give you money unless you have 'redundant' connectivity for your e-whatever. 2) Your insurance auditors won't give you insurance for your e-whatever unless you have 'redundant' connectivity.
so i might seriously consider dual homing to separate pops of a single very reliable isp, and concentrating my energy on physical diversity of the local loop.
I believe you just limited yourself to an amazingly small number of providers, if any at all. Even in the large metro areas where providers _might_ have two POPs, they are often fairly dependant on a third location (ie 60 Hudson, 1 Wilshire) which in many cases could just be an aggregation POP for that provider in the region. How many cities does Verio have two POP's in set up in such a way that the loss of all or part of one POP would result in almost no effect on the other POP?
if i really felt the need for multiple providers, i might do a double nat, but with full 1:1 mapping, i.e. pure address aliasing, not space compression. of course, some persistent connections would be lost in the case of a link failure. but insurance against very rare cases is ok if the expense is incurred on the rare case.
You want to explain that in a bit more detail. Start with 'client looks up www.example.com' and go to 'client establishes tcp connection with the web server that services the content'. Having DNS point at 2 IP's and having one "not be there" is not a valid answer, it doesn't work in the real world. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org