-----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:55 AM To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Proper authentication model
On 12 Jan 2005, at 10:16, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
If you have 3 sites and they're interconnected via an OC3 and the internet, you would also have 2 frame or ppp circuits seperately connecting the terminal server network. You'd do the different path, different provider, etc. on these circuits.
You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.
Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than your OC3 provider. Of course, you need to have at least 3 unique carriers in the facility, but most do. This is not so easy at the enterprise level. I'd add the caveat that this only works if you have diversified entrance facilities and follow bellcore standards for central offices when you design and implement your facilities. For example, Level3 and Internap. -M<
On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.
Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than your OC3 provider.
I realise that's what you meant. My point was that competing, differently-named and organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure. Joe
On 1/12/05 12:05 PM, "Joe Abley" <jabley@isc.org> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.
Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than your OC3 provider.
I realise that's what you meant.
My point was that competing, differently-named and organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure.
Joe
Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is to request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong... - Dan --
My point was that competing, differently-named and organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure.
Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is to request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong...
Tell your carrier that you want to buy physical seperacy. Currently this is only offered by some metro networks because corporates want physical seperacy to connect their SANs (Storage Area Networks) to their offices. My company's network maintains seperacy for the financial market data feeds that run across it. We do that because the customers specifically demand that capability. Rather than trying to do the carrier's job by requesting GIS data, tell them you want to buy "physical seperacy" as a product. Get them to do the work and show you the data to prove that they really are delivering physical seperacy. --Michael Dillon
That's great if you want to trust one carrier to provide all your seperacy, but, when you want to make sure carrier A isn't running your ring in common with carrier B, you need GIS data. Owen --On Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:36 AM +0000 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
My point was that competing, differently-named and organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure.
Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is to request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong...
Tell your carrier that you want to buy physical seperacy. Currently this is only offered by some metro networks because corporates want physical seperacy to connect their SANs (Storage Area Networks) to their offices. My company's network maintains seperacy for the financial market data feeds that run across it. We do that because the customers specifically demand that capability.
Rather than trying to do the carrier's job by requesting GIS data, tell them you want to buy "physical seperacy" as a product. Get them to do the work and show you the data to prove that they really are delivering physical seperacy.
--Michael Dillon
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
participants (5)
-
Daniel Golding -
Hannigan, Martin -
Joe Abley -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Owen DeLong