nanog mailing list archives
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:13:55 +0900
Stef Walter wrote:
In this day of and age of wild-west, cowboy attitudes between some of the biggest players on the Internet, does protecting against these problems require a routing device that can handle multiple full routing tables? It would seem so...
It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected transit purchasing ISPs carry. If business requirements for reachability necessitate multi-homing then carrying the tables if probably also a requirement. joel
Cheers, Stef
Current thread:
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?, (continued)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 08)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Joe Greco (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Joe Greco (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? adel (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Seth Mattinen (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Stef Walter (Nov 10)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Joel Jaeggli (Nov 10)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Randy Bush (Nov 10)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Joel Jaeggli (Nov 12)
- RE: Failover how much complexity will it add? Holmes,David A (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Joe Greco (Nov 09)
- Re: Failover how much complexity will it add? Brad Fleming (Nov 10)