Re: router with 2 redundant interfaces

[Dave Piscitello <dave () corecom com>]

Yours is a classic issue: How much redundancy and diversity is "enough"?
Enough is a function of the availability metric you seek to satisfy.

Ideally, you want two of each network element that can fail in your 
path. On your premises, that means 2 routers, each with 2 NICs, 
connected to 2 independent and redundant power sources. Obsessive-minded 
IT may even place this equipment in separate wiring closets.

Some organizations have extreme availability needs, and consider the 
entire access path from customer premises equipment to core ISPs.

In the extreme, such organizations might not only require two access 
circuits, but want assurances from the telco that the circuits take 
diverse local loop paths to different telco switches in different 
central offices and connect to two different regional/local ISPs.

This can be very expensive, and it's may well be overkill for your 
organization, but it illustrates the need to understand the value of 
"enough".

Richard Golodner wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 23:18:21 shadow floating wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > my company is having 2 leased lines internet connections and they were 
> > about to buy two routers to make them standby to each other, each with 
> > one of the internet connections, as they were discussing with some 
> > network consultant...he convinced them to reduce cost and put 2 wics 
> > in one router only each connected to the each internet connection 
> > instead of buying 2 routers....is that appropriate??
> >
> > thanks alot
> >
> > Nad
>
>         I have to agree with what Vladimir said. Two separate machines as
> opposed to one with two interfaces is a much better idea. The rational is
> supported by the fact that hardware does go bad on occasion, network
> maintenance and upgrades are done with a lot less downtime, and you have a
> greater degree of control over your leased lines and what they are carrying
> (load balancing).
>         So the answer from me would be no, it is not a good idea.
>
>       most sincerely, Richard Golodner
>       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

Attachment: dave.vcf
Description:

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards