>Jason Roysdon wrote,
>I've been asked to research additional ISPs. We're currently connected to
>Sprint & UUNET. I'm using Boardwatch to get some general info on ISPs
> http://www.ispworld.com/isp/bb/n_america.htm ), but mainly what I'm looking
>for is anyone's bad/horrible/stay-away-from-this-ISP stories. One
>requirement will be BGP peering.
>
>A little more info: Right now we've got two locations we control: one is
>connected to Sprint, one to UUNET, and each site is also directly connected.
>Our Corporate office (not a site we control) is also on Sprint and has a
>number of remote apps we access via Citrix MetaFrame (which runs fine routed
>through the direct connection to the Sprint and out to Corporate), but our
>main Admin site (which we control) is the UUNET site. Would it make more
>sense to get a second connection to Sprint at the Admin site, or is it more
>advantageous to add a 3rd ISP instead? Right now the traffic between sites
>is minimal, but will be increasing once we get BGP up and running. If we
>were to have Sprint at both sites, it would could down on our transit
>traffic between sites, if we added a 3rd ISP at either site it would
>increase our transit traffic between sites.
The devil is always in the details, but, given the information you
mention, I'd be inclined to go with the second link to Sprint.
Let me give some perspective. Some of the things that can break, and
ways to deal with them, include:
single server failure server cluster/local distribution
server site failure DistributedDirector, etc.
single link to single POP of one ISP MLPPP or dial backup
single router multiple routers
POP of one ISP multihome to >1 POP
BGP routing of one ISP multihome to >1 ISP
Major upstream failure of an ISP, ensure your ISP has multiple
or major physical failure of independent upstreams, or
a tier 1 ISP use tier 1 with significant
diversity
I get into these in much more detail in my _WAN Survival Guide_
(Wiley), a shameless plug.
A major provider such as either Sprint or UUnet has substantial
physical diversity, although it isn't guaranteed unless you contract
for it. By being connected to two providers, you are fairly
protected against a major routing foulup.
If you are relying on being connected to two independent upstreams to
protect against physical failure, and no one is contractually
responsible, you could easily have the situation in which both Sprint
and UUnet simultaneously run out of capacity between, say, Boston and
New York. They independently lease capacity from Level 3, and,
without knowing it, are in the same fiber run. A single backhoe
could get both.
Either Sprint or UUnet, however, can engineer facility diversity so
all your traffic is not in one pipe. This has to be managed, and
very well may cost more.
>
>Both sites also resell ISP services to half a dozen customers (approx 1:6
>relationship from upstream:customer), which is the main reason for adding a
>3rd ISP.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
