nanog mailing list archives
RE: Confussion over multi-homing
From: Alex Pilosov <alex () pilosoft com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:31:03 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
2. It only protects you from failure of a link from you to upstream, not from upstream losing their connectivity, power, or flapping like crazy and getting dampened. In my experience, latter happened more often than first. :)note that "non-direct ebgp" peering on the picture can actually be between e-br-a and *any* router in isp-b, not necessarily isp-br-b. this way your real problem 2 is solved.
Not really. If the 'internet defaultless core' routers drop the route to ISP-B, then you are still completely screwed. -alex
Current thread:
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing, (continued)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing dan (Sep 15)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing Sean Donelan (Sep 14)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing John Fraizer (Sep 14)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing Patrick Evans (Sep 15)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing John Fraizer (Sep 15)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing John Fraizer (Sep 14)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 15)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Dmitri Krioukov (Sep 15)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing David Lott (Sep 15)
- Re: Confussion over multi-homing Alex Pilosov (Sep 15)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Dmitri Krioukov (Sep 15)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Alex Pilosov (Sep 15)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Dmitri Krioukov (Sep 15)
- RE: Confussion over multi-homing Dmitri Krioukov (Sep 15)