RE: multi-homing

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

PS. The ONLY provider I can get to my Colorado Springs facility (Black
Forest) is USWest/Qwest.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 11:01 AM
> To: 'Alex Rubenstein'; 'Dana Hudes'
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: RE: multi-homing
>
>
>
> No, but it depends on the capacity requirements. We looked
> into self-homed
> vs. colo. Given that;
> 1) Most eCommerce projects need to be completed inside of six months.
> 2) Connectivity needs to happen in the first 3 weeks of
> project kick-off.
> 3) Telco WAN circuit delivery, for large capacity, takes
> anywhere from 6 to
> 18 weeks per circuit (depending on RBOC ... could be MUCH longer).
> 4) Facility build-out takes even longer (3 to 6 months).
>
> For large capacity sites, colo is the only way, with
> potential self-homing
> within two years. It just can't happen faster than that. Also, smaller
> providers are out, because of public peering point congestion
> and that is
> usually their only avenue. Large providers, with their own private
> dark-fiber network, leaving only last-mile traffic to the
> public Internet,
> appears to be the only way to go <sigh>.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog () merit edu
> [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> > Alex Rubenstein
> > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 9:54 AM
> > To: Dana Hudes
> > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > Subject: Re: multi-homing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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?