RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos are multi-homed, in spades.
You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs, in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy.
Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what you need... Curses... You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet, for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs. This only creates entries in the internal routing. I agree, that having two seperate ISPs is usually the best answer, but if ISPs were reliable enough perhaps two links to the same ISP would be enough for some places. Shel On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:50:37PM -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos are multi-homed, in spades.
You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs, in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy.
Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what you need... Curses...
You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet, for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require.
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ,-~~-.___. ._. / | ' \ | |"""""""""| Sheldon M. Dubrowin ( ) 0 | | | \_/-, ,----' | | | ==== !_!--v---v--" / \-'~; |""""""""| dubrowin@yahoo.com / __/~| ._-""|| | www.shelnet.org =( _____|_|____||________| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to see how this helps reliability in the case of ISP "routing instability" I believe that last year one large ISP lost almost all of its Bay Area connectivity and had a network meltdown due to "routing instabilities" (whatever that means). If you are running a mission critical network, I think you have no choice to be multi-homed to at least two ISPS preferably not residing on the same conduit that they both lease from the same transport network. Bora
From: Sheldon Dubrowin <dubrowin@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:15:14 -0400 To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs. This only creates entries in the internal routing. I agree, that having two seperate ISPs is usually the best answer, but if ISPs were reliable enough perhaps two links to the same ISP would be enough for some places.
Shel
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:50:37PM -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:37:22PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything other than a bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is assumed that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". Reputable colos are multi-homed, in spades.
You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs, in order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I bought one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm astounded to find that neither provides me with the luxury which I expected." I think Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a Checker, you might not need to worry quite so much about redundancy.
Only one transit? For a reliable internet, two transits is the minimium requirement, and you have but one, which is less then two, and two is what you need... Curses...
You must immediately purchase some transit, which you need for internet, for without transit you cannot have the internet that you so require.
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ,-~~-.___. ._. / | ' \ | |"""""""""| Sheldon M. Dubrowin ( ) 0 | | | \_/-, ,----' | | | ==== !_!--v---v--" / \-'~; |""""""""| dubrowin@yahoo.com / __/~| ._-""|| | www.shelnet.org =( _____|_|____||________| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:13:59AM -0700, Bora Akyol had this to say:
I fail to see how this helps reliability in the case of ISP "routing instability" I believe that last year one large ISP lost almost all of its Bay Area connectivity and had a network meltdown due to "routing instabilities" (whatever that means).
multi-homing may not help much if the [X] ISPs you're connected to get their connectivity from the same NSP and that NSP has issues (as you noted below) ...
If you are running a mission critical network, I think you have no choice to be multi-homed to at least two ISPS preferably not residing on the same conduit that they both lease from the same transport network.
as opposed to those of us multi-homing our mp3 file servers for maximum reliability ... ;)
Bora
-- Scott Francis scott@ [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m Systems Analyst darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t PGP fingerprint 7ABF E2E9 CD54 A1A8 804D 179A 8802 0FBA CB33 CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Sheldon Dubrowin wrote:
I think the suggestion was to get multihomed to the same ISP. You can still get redundant links to the same ISP and you won't be adding BGP entries on the Core Routers. The benefit to this in a BGP world is that the ISP will deal with which link to use, perhaps to different POPs.
The problem is that currently ISPs are a lot less reliable than telcos or hardware. You tend to get an upstream provider having a problem ( lasting say a minute or more ) once every week or so while Telco or Hardware problems will occur every year or so. One of the numbers is 50 times bigger than the other. As for using different pops it doesn't always work. We have 2 US pops currently. One has 2 links to different pops of the same provider while the other has 2 links to that provider and a backup link to another. Last night the main providers entire California network when to hell for about 2 hours. One pop was almostly completely offline while the other was mostly working for the entire time. With the currently level of reliability, redundancy of providers *is* pretty much required. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
participants (5)
-
Bora Akyol -
Richard A. Steenbergen -
Scott Francis -
Sheldon Dubrowin -
Simon Lyall