On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> Most of the multi-homing talk has been about failover capabilities between
> different providers. What about the effects of multiple providers when
> neither has actually failed; such as different paths for inbound/outbound
> traffic. One provider ma
Most of the multi-homing talk has been about failover capabilities
between different providers. What about the effects of multiple
providers when neither has actually failed; such as different paths for
inbound/outbound traffic. One provider may have better connectivity to
x site whereas th
u have received this
e-mail in error, please contact Walt Disney Internet Group at
206-664-4000.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott McGrath
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Enterprise Multihoming
As Marshall noted multi-homing gives you the ability to switch providers
easily. This ability also gives you leverage with your network providers
since vendor lock-in does not exist.
This is a strong business case for multihoming and is one the financial
types understand and appreciate.
In a p
>Shameless plug: I do go through these options in my book, Building
>Service Provider Networks (Wiley). Even there, though, I only run
>through the alternatives. You will still have to make your own
>cost-benefit decisions based on business policy, budget, clue level
>and cost of alternative
At 4:06 PM + 3/12/04, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I think its too easy, thats the problem.
Hoping that I don't sound too much like Bill Clinton, that depends on
what you mean by "it." If "it" is multihoming, with your own ASN, to
two providers, your raise some valid points.
Is there an intermed
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
IMHO avoid multihoming. You will know when you are big enough and you *need* to
do it, if you're not sure or you only want to do it cause you heard everyone
else is and its real cool then I suggest you dont.
There _is_ another element that I tried to point to yesterday.
>>> "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/12/04 9:06:38 AM
>>>
>I dont agree that connecting to two+ upstreams makes you better. In
my
>experience end networks have a couple of orders of magnitude more
downtime than
>a PoP in any reasonably large ISP. Ie the percentage theoretical
improvement
I think its too easy, thats the problem. For <$1000 (excluding bandwidth/ccts)
you can buy a box, connect to your two providers, get an ASN and IPs and you're
away. Compare to the telephone network, to 'multihome' you need to get licenses,
allocations of numbers and codes thats not so easy, get
There are similar boxes from FatPipe and Radware (and others) that
promise the same thing. I've done some light research on them and while
I can see some positives, I don't prefer them to our current solution.
Then again, I don't have any practical experience with them and I hope
someone who has
PH> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:31:52 +0200
PH> From: Petri Helenius
PH> I´m refering to the most popular way of causing an IGP
PH> meltdown. Obviously there are other ways, like software
PH> defects to make your IGP go mad. But when your upstream´s IGP
PH> does that, you want to have provider B
John
As already stated by lots of folks on the list, this is largely a business
decision rather than a technical one. However, there are some more useful
thoughts:
1. Is the decision to multi-home consistent with your other redundancy plans?
For example, why go through all the trouble of multi
Jay Ford wrote:
[snip]
Many/most of my external connectivity problems are provider-related rather
than circuit-related. Having two circuits to a single provider doesn't help
when that provider is broken. I'm not saying that multi-ISP BGP-based
multi-homing is risk-free, but I don't see multi-circ
John Neiberger wrote:
Whilst the topic's under discussion may I present myself as a
lightning
rod :) by asking:
(a) Has anyone here used any of the 'basement multi-homing in a box'
products such as Checkpoint's ISP Redundancy feature?
http://www.checkpoint.com/products/connect/vpn-1_isp_r
>Whilst the topic's under discussion may I present myself as a
lightning
>rod :) by asking:
>
>(a) Has anyone here used any of the 'basement multi-homing in a box'
>products such as Checkpoint's ISP Redundancy feature?
>
>http://www.checkpoint.com/products/connect/vpn-1_isp_redundancy.html
>(The
E.B. Dreger wrote:
PH> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:21:03 +0200
PH> From: Petri Helenius
PH> Depending on your requirements, the option of having somebody
PH> redistribute all their BGP routes into ISIS or OSPF might not
PH> worth looking forward to.
Couldn't quite parse this, but it sounds scary.
John Neiberger wrote:
On another list we've been having multihoming discussions again and I
wanted to get some fresh opinions from you.
Whilst the topic's under discussion may I present myself as a lightning
rod :) by asking:
(a) Has anyone here used any of the 'basement multi-homing in a box
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> There is another thing - if you are multi-homed, and want to switch
> providers, it is pretty seamless and painless - no renumbering, no
> loss of connection, etc., as you always have a redundant path.
Sure -- though many ISPs will probably let you
There is another thing - if you are multi-homed, and want to switch
providers, it is pretty seamless and painless - no renumbering, no
loss of connection, etc., as you always have a redundant path.
On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Mutli-homing a non-ISP network or s
>
>JN> My current opinion is that since we can't accept much
>JN> downtime in the case of a single provider failure, it's
>JN> probably not wise to put all of our eggs in Sprint's basket
>JN> even if all circuits are geographically diverse.
>
>Use multiple border routers. Keep your IGP lean and n
JN> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:10:17 -0700
JN> From: John Neiberger
JN> My current opinion is that since we can't accept much
JN> downtime in the case of a single provider failure, it's
JN> probably not wise to put all of our eggs in Sprint's basket
JN> even if all circuits are geographically div
PH> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:21:03 +0200
PH> From: Petri Helenius
PH> Depending on your requirements, the option of having somebody
PH> redistribute all their BGP routes into ISIS or OSPF might not
PH> worth looking forward to.
Couldn't quite parse this, but it sounds scary.
Eddy
--
EverQuic
Mutli-homing a non-ISP network or system on multiple carriers is a good
> way to maintain independent links to the internet by means of different
> peering, uplinks, over-all routing and reliability. My network on NAIS
> is currently multi-homed through AT&T. I use a single provider as both
Hello;
On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 12:10 PM, John Neiberger wrote:
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm glad that I got some
opinions here before I proceeded. I also participate in another list
that has some fairly experienced people on it. They prevailing opinion
there was that m
John Neiberger wrote:
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm glad that I got some
opinions here before I proceeded. I also participate in another list
that has some fairly experienced people on it. They prevailing opinion
there was that multihoming to multiple providers was overrated and
PROTECTED]
->Subject: Re: Enterprise Multihoming
->
->
->
->Mutli-homing a non-ISP network or system on multiple carriers
->is a good
->way to maintain independent links to the internet by means of
->different
->peering, uplinks, over-all routing and reliability. My
->ne
In my opinion, these are all decisions that each company and it's management
and IT departments must reach for themselves. There are no universally
right
or wrong answers. There are tradeoffs either way, and, evaluating those
tradeoffs is a big part of why an IT department and managers get paid.
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm glad that I got some
opinions here before I proceeded. I also participate in another list
that has some fairly experienced people on it. They prevailing opinion
there was that multihoming to multiple providers was overrated and
largely unnecessary,
At what point do you feel that it is
: justified for a non-ISP to multihome to multiple providers?
If the business model allows for the downtime caused by putting all your
internet connectivity in one bucket.
james
Mutli-homing a non-ISP network or system on multiple carriers is a good
way to maintain independent links to the internet by means of different
peering, uplinks, over-all routing and reliability. My network on NAIS
is currently multi-homed through AT&T. I use a single provider as both
of my r
>>> Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/11/04 9:13:04 AM >>>
>
>On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:04:57AM -0700, John Neiberger wrote:
>> For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to
>> multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case
a
>> single provider has problem
John Neiberger wrote:
I see a few upsides to this, but are there any real downsides?
Connecting to single AS makes you physically resilient but logically
dependent on single entity, be that a provisioning system, routing
protocol instance, etc. Depending on your requirements, the option of
On 11.03.2004 17:04 John Neiberger wrote:
What is the prevailing wisdom now? At what point do you feel that it is
justified for a non-ISP to multihome to multiple providers?
IMHO you do not need a justification. If you think multiple links to the
same provider don't buy you what you need (e.g. if
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
> On another list we've been having multihoming discussions again and I
> wanted to get some fresh opinions from you.
>
> For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to
> multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:04:57AM -0700, John Neiberger wrote:
> For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to
> multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case a
> single provider has problems. I know this is frowned upon now,
> especially since it helped in
On another list we've been having multihoming discussions again and I
wanted to get some fresh opinions from you.
For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to
multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case a
single provider has problems. I know this is fro
36 matches
Mail list logo
