Switches should not be crashing in a carrier environment.
> On Nov 13, 2020, at 10:06 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > > You're misrepresenting the DE-CIX situation. > > One switch crashed, which happens from time to time for everyone. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:03:13 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Multiple carriers > > Joining an IX is more complicated than just buying Internet service and > recently we had the DECIX in New York City completely crash which took down a > whole bunch of traffic. > > I would rather have multiple carriers than be relying on a single IX that I > have no control over > > > On Nov 13, 2020, at 9:45 AM, fiber...@mail.com wrote: > > > > Not to disagree with the recommendation to join an IX or two or in anyway > > undermine the point, but I can see why some go for larger pipes rather than > > IXes. It's simpler and may be, if not cheaper, about the same cost. In any > > case you are going to need the big pipes, in case the IX goes tits up. > > > > The benefits of joining an IX are largely non-monetary. > > > > Jared > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 > > From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Multiple carriers > > > > Also, if you're exceeding the 1G level, you really need to be connecting to > > an IX to offload the bulk of your traffic. If you're exceeding 10G, you > > need to be connecting to multiple IXes. > > > > > > I see ISPs all of the time thinking they need 40G and 100G connections to > > Cogent and Hurricane, but their IX and PNI strategy is weaksauce. > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/] > > [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL] > > Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/] > > [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix] > > The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/] > > [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > From: "Steven Kenney" <st...@wavedirect.org> > > To: "af" <af@af.afmug.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Multiple carriers > > > > > > What he said prepending sucks.. use /24's if you can. Also yes time to > > look for some 10Gbps interfaces. No way around it! I went from 1G to > > several 10G interfaces now I'm pushing my carriers for 100G interfaces. > > Carriers like Cogeco are telling me that we are the topic of discussion on > > a daily basis because we are pushing them to upgrade their network faster > > than they planned. If they can't keep up you'll be force into getting > > creative and getting into fiber yourselves. It will only grow and is going > > faster and faster. Don't worry about starlink! 25Mbps in a house in rural > > areas will be not enough in 5 years. > > > > > > > > [https://www.wavedirect.net/] > > [https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed] > > [https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/] > > [https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/] > > [https://twitter.com/wavedirect1] > > [https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect] STEVEN KENNEY > > DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington > > ON > > E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 > > W: www.wavedirect.net[http://www.wavedirect.net] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > > To: "af" <af@af.afmug.com> > > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:38:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Multiple carriers > > > > I like the curling analogy. No perfect load balancing across the Internet. > > > > You can advertise the supernet out of all carriers and also advertise > > individual /24's out of the preferred carrier. BGP will use the longer > > subnet mask first and fallback to the supernet. If you have a bunch of > > non-contiguous allocations then obviously that's not an option, but if > > you have something bigger than a /24 then you can do it. > > > > I also would note that if Connection "A" goes down, connection "B", "C", > > or "D" might need to carry all the load and you may not know which way > > it will come in. You can test and see what happens in a planned outage, > > and tweak your settings just so, but I don't think you can guarantee > > that topology upstream from you didn't change at some point between your > > testing and the eventual unplanned outage. If you need 4Gb, then you > > might just need two 4Gb pipes to have meaningful redundancy. Depends > > what you're willing to live with. There's a saying that "slow is better > > than down", but IMO the phone blows up either which way so best to avoid > > either "slow" or "down" conditions. > > > > I'll also note that every time I've ordered a 1gig circuit they gave me > > GigE optics. If you order anything bigger, even if it's 1.1Gig then > > it'll be a 10Gig interface by necessity. An upgrade then is just a > > phone call, whereas the upgrade from 1Gig is a scheduled outage to swap > > interface cards. > > > > > >> On 11/12/2020 7:15 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > >> Right. Which is not ideal. > >> > >>>> On Nov 12, 2020, at 7:11 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> There are smarter people than me here on the topic of BGP, but I believe > >>> load balancing via prepends is an inexact science. It's like the guy with > >>> the broom in curling, you can influence but not dictate the outcome. > >>> > >>> You'd probably have better control advertising each subnet via just one of > >>> the upstream providers, but then you lose the advantage of redundant > >>> feeds. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes > >>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:45 PM > >>> To: af@af.afmug.com > >>> Subject: [AFMUG] Multiple carriers > >>> > >>> I have a situation where I can buy several 1 gigabit pipes from several > >>> top > >>> tier carriers relatively inexpensively. > >>> Or I can buy one fat pipe from one carrier. > >>> > >>> Say I need 4 gigabits of bandwidth and have four 1 gigabit pipes from 4 > >>> carriers running BGP, is there a best way to load balance these? Just AS > >>> pre-pend subsets on each carrier so certain subnets prefer one over > >>> another? > >>> Or is there a better way? > >>> -- > >>> AF mailing list > >>> AF@af.afmug.com > >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com[http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> AF mailing list > >>> AF@af.afmug.com > >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com[http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com] > > > > -- > > AF mailing list > > AF@af.afmug.com > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com[http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com] > > -- > > AF mailing list > > AF@af.afmug.com > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com[http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com] > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com[http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com] > > > > > > -- > > AF mailing list > > AF@af.afmug.com > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
