Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Speeds and feeds
From: tqbf () pobox com
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:40:31 -0500 (CDT)
Keeping the second router as a spare is pretty expensive. Especially if you want more than a DS-1 worth of bandwidth - which was the original point of
It's exactly as expensive as using two seperate routers to manage two seperate DS1 connections. One solution (mine) is simply easier to manage than the other.
the post, I think. Anyway, an internal routing protocol (other than something like iBGP) isn't going to work in this instance.
Exactly why do you think that an IGP won't solve the problem of balancing traffic over two links to the same destination? Two equal-cost links to the same place should be balanced automatically by routing software. In case you're confused, static routes qualify as an IGP.
You'd need to have an agreement with your upstream to balance inbound traffic over the two lines; running an IGP between your end and the ISP should solve this.
You'd need to have an agreement with the whole internet! A provider isn't
No, you don't. If you only have one provider, you have no need to advertise your addresses to the Internet. What you do need is to establish between your site and your ISPs that there are in fact two equal-cost (at least by policy) connections into your site. Running a dynamic IGP with your ISP (perhaps they do OSPF with their DS1 customers for this purpose) solves that problem. So do static routes.
experience, it is near impossible to get any of the larger providers to run something like OSPF with you either. This discussion isn't relevant unless
Don't do business with providers that aren't flexible enough to do exactly what you want them to. It's a buyer's market, and the large providers certainly don't differentiate themselves in any way meaningful enough to offset inflexibility. However, you are basing this argument off the assumption that when I say IGP, I mean "dynamic routing protocol".
If we are considering the case of an IGP with a single provider, there would be a limited win from multiple DS-1 connections IMHO. In that case, I would
Limited win? You mean BESIDES increasing available bandwidth by a factor of two? Multi-homing is a non-trivial task, and doing it for real has prerequisites that many (most) organizations cannot meet.
suggest that they would want to look at the original suggestion of a larger pipe - i.e. limited bandwidth DS-3.
This is a silly suggestion. A capped DS3 has exactly the same reliability problems (more so, in fact) than two DS1 connections. You are arguing that there is limited benefit in running two DS1s to a single provider, because you don't win the stability of being able to fail-over to the second ISP. Your solution is thus to buy a SINGLE pipe to one ISP, so if your link fails, you don't even get fail-over to a second link to the same provider. If you don't need more than 2 DS1s worth of bandwidth, 2 DS1s is (in my opinion) a much better solution than a single DS3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas H. Ptacek The Company Formerly Known As Secure Networks, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.pobox.com/~tqbf "If you're so special, why aren't you dead?"
Current thread:
- Re: Speeds and feeds Stout, Bill (Jun 02)
- Re: Speeds and feeds David Lang (Jun 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Speeds and feeds tqbf (Jun 03)
- RE: Speeds and feeds Andrew J. Luca (Jun 05)
- Re: Speeds and feeds tqbf (Jun 05)
- RE: Speeds and feeds Andrew J. Luca (Jun 07)
- Re: Speeds and feeds tqbf (Jun 07)
- RE: Speeds and feeds Andrew J. Luca (Jun 07)
- Re: Speeds and feeds tqbf (Jun 07)
- RE: Speeds and feeds Andrew J. Luca (Jun 08)
- RE: Speeds and feeds Andrew J. Luca (Jun 05)