Re: Does anyone multihome anymore?

[Dan Armstrong <dan () beanfield com>]

We're connected to Teleglobe(6453), Telus(852), TeliaSonera(1299), 
MCI(701), and L3(3356)

We don't play any economic games with our traffic - our routing policy 
is (theoretically) designed to give the best possible product to our 
customers, and although we weren't dead in the water during the cable 
cut, we had major problems - especially to Bell(577) for the same reason 
as Mike.

So what is the solution?  So do we connect to Bell as well?  Even though 
they are the ones with the moronic routing policy? It would solve the 
problem, but it's certainly not the way to support "quality" carriers by 
purchasing only quality bandwidth...



Mike Tancsa wrote:

> At 10:11 AM 8/22/2007, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight Solutions wrote:
>
> > Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > >
> > > At 03:49 AM 8/22/2007, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pardon my forwardness, but don't people just multi-home these days?
> > >> If your
> > >
> > > Multihoming is great for when there is a total outage.  In the case of
> > > Cogent on Monday, it wasnt "down"... In this case, there is only so 
> > much
> > > you can do to influence how packets come back at you as BGP doesnt 
> > know
> > > anything about a "lossy" or slow connections.
> > >
> > >         ---Mike
> >
> > Take the carrier that is causing you issues out of your eBGP setup and
> > all's well....
>
>
> Hi,
> In my case, I have 6453 and 174 for transit.  I want to get to 577 
> which is directly connected to 6453 and 174. 577 has a higher local 
> pref on paths via 174.  Short of shutting my 174 session (or some 
> deaggregation), I dont have a way to influence how 577 gets back to 
> me.  I can easily exit out 6453, but it does nothing for the return 
> packets.  I have enough capacity on 6453 to handle all my traffic, but 
> its a Draconian step to take and some traffic via 174 is fine and 
> would be worse if I fully shut the session. (ie. peers of 174 in Toronto)
>
>         ---Mike