RE: Speeds and feeds

["Andrew J. Luca" <andrewluca () mediaone net>]

> From what I understand, this discussion grew out of a discussion of a larger
pipe.  If you are a looking to multiplex T-1's in order to get that fatter
pipe, you might as well build some additional redundancy into the system by
pulling from more than one provider.  Also, the best that you can really
hope for from an IGP is round-robin like sharing down multiple pipes - even
if they are to the same provider.  If they are to different providers, you
bring performance problems into the mix by inducing possibly sub-optimal
asymmetric routing from the point of origin.

Also, unless you are running a dynamic routing protocol on your firewall
(something that we built at my last company and are writing a paper about),
you will find that when one of your routers goes down you see extremely
sub-optimal routing. You will be dropping n/2 packets with two routers.
This is the point that I was trying to get at.  I am well aware that static
routes qualify as an IGP.  However, static routes defeat many of the
benefits of having multiple links with multiple providers.  As for your
comment about providers not being flexible, they are always willing to do
anything that you want to pay for.  However, even the eight hundred pound
gorilla can't always get what he wants.  He can, however, always take his
bananas an eat them somewhere else.

Don't you think that since the original poster was **discussing** a capped
DS-3, that he is looking for more bandwidth than just two DS-1's?????  The
weakest link in a WAN configuration is almost always the link itself.  If
you are going to build dual-links, you might as well try to build in some
technology which will help to reduce the impact that an inevitable outage
will have upon you.

Drew