nanog mailing list archives
Re: Enterprise Multihoming
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:13:04 +0100
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:04:57AM -0700, John Neiberger wrote:
For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case a single provider has problems. I know this is frowned upon now, especially since it helped increase the number of autonomous systems and routing table prefixes beyond what was really necessary.
Who defines what is "really necessary"? What is your understanding of "really necessary" when it comes to the desire to be commercially and technically independent of your suppliers? It's this discussion again. Regards, Daniel
Current thread:
- Enterprise Multihoming John Neiberger (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Daniel Roesen (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Jay Ford (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Crist Clark (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Arnold Nipper (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Petri Helenius (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming E.B. Dreger (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Petri Helenius (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming E.B. Dreger (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming E.B. Dreger (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Gregory Taylor (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Pekka Savola (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Marshall Eubanks (Mar 11)
- Re: Enterprise Multihoming Pekka Savola (Mar 11)