North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Enterprise Multihoming
- From: Gregory Taylor
- Date: Thu Mar 11 11:41:56 2004
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 redundant links via 100% Fiber network. Even though this is
cheaper for me, all it takes is for AT&T to have some major outage and I
will be screwed. If I have a backup fiber line from say, Global
Crossing, then it doesn't matter if AT&T takes a nose dive, I still have
my redundancy there.
That is why most non-ISPs hold multihoming via different providers as
their #1 choice.
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 a
single provider has problems. I know this is frowned upon now,
especially since it helped increase the number of autonomous systems and
routing table prefixes beyond what was really necessary. It seems to me
that a large number of companies that did this could just have well
ordered multiple, geographically separate links to the same provider.
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? I ask
because we have three links: two from Sprint and one from Global
Crossing. I'm considering dropping the GC circuit and adding another
geographically-diverse connection to Sprint, and then removing BGP from
I see a few upsides to this, but are there any real downsides?
Flame on. :-)