Re: multi-homing

[Alex Rubenstein <alex () nac net>]

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Dana Hudes wrote:

> The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players.
> Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements?
> Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and
> pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the
> result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus
> customers.  The message is loud and clear. If you want your server
> farm to have good access, put it in a good co-location facility in the
> US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a very large
> provider who has good redundancy not only of their network as a whole
> but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN circuit
> does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is exceedingly good and
> fault-tolerant etc.).

I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a huge, national
tier-1).

Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller company, that is
potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has better pricing,
and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones?