nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Design question.
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:59:00 -0400
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT, -Hammer- said:
Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended downtime to save a buck or two. Redundant hardware is always a good way to keep Murphy out of the equation. And as far as hardware failures go, it's not that common. Nowadays it's the bugs in overly complicated code on your gear that get you first. I miss IOS 11.3.....
So what you're saying is we're more likely to take an outage due to tripping over a bug, so we should go for the simplest non-crossover config to minimize the chances of hitting a bug. ;)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: BGP Design question., (continued)
- Re: BGP Design question. -Hammer- (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. William Cooper (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. Bret Palsson (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. PC (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. -Hammer- (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. Bret Palsson (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. Jason Roysdon (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. Hank Nussbacher (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. Bret Palsson (Jun 22)
- Re: BGP Design question. -Hammer- (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. -Hammer- (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. Owen DeLong (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. Owen DeLong (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. -Hammer- (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. Jason Roysdon (Jun 23)
- Re: BGP Design question. PC (Jun 22)