nanog mailing list archives
Re: Proper authentication model
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:14:36 -0500
On 1/12/05 12:05 PM, "Joe Abley" <jabley () isc org> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote:You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than your OC3 provider.I realise that's what you meant. My point was that competing, differently-named and organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building access, etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure. Joe
Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is to request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong... - Dan --
Current thread:
- Re: Proper authentication model, (continued)
- Re: Proper authentication model Gernot W. Schmied (Jan 16)
- Re: Proper authentication model Kevin (Jan 11)
- Re: Proper authentication model Joe Abley (Jan 11)
- Re: Proper authentication model Stephen Stuart (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model Stephen Stuart (Jan 12)
- RE: Proper authentication model Hannigan, Martin (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model Joe Abley (Jan 12)
- RE: Proper authentication model Steve Gibbard (Jan 12)
- RE: Proper authentication model Hannigan, Martin (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model Joe Abley (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model Daniel Golding (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model Michael . Dillon (Jan 13)
- Re: Proper authentication model Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: Proper authentication model Joe Abley (Jan 12)
- Re: Proper authentication model John Bittenbender (Jan 16)