Sean, First, Unix is the only way to go. :) Second, what do you suggest instead of a /19? -- James Smith, CCNA Network/System Administrator DXSTORM.COM http://www.dxstorm.com/ DXSTORM Inc. 2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203 Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5 Tel: 905-829-3389 (email preferred) Fax: 905-829-5692 1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676) On 5 Dec 1999, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sat, 04 December 1999, James Smith wrote:
Our only alternative is to eliminate every single-point failure with stuff like high availability clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups, nuclear reactors, physical separate sites on different planets, etc. :-) (Pardon me, it's 2:00am and I'm getting punching)
If you are using Microsoft products in your nuclear reactor, its not going to be very reliable. They aren't designed for that purpose.
The tools exist to make very reliable network applications, but we can't force people to use them. So long as applications neglect to use the other information provided by the network, they are going to be vulnerable to single points of failure.
Multiple A records exist for a reason. Even if you have high availability clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups, multi-homing, multi-sites; if you are depending on a single global network announcement there is nothing to prevent another ISP from announcing the same prefix with a shorter AS path length, and effectively blackholing your network. For people with ultra-high reliablility requirements, a /19 isn't the solution.