In my (rather extensive) practice, multihoming by itself is
usually a major source of connectivity problems.
Whoever arguing _for_ mulihoming for everyone forgets that
taking more routing information in has dangers not present
when you don't do routing yourself.
I never saw any customer who had the ability to configure a
multihomed site properly on their own; and most of the bogus
routing information comes from multihomed customer sites.
It is _much_ better to multihome to the same provider who then
can take care of messy global routing.
--vadim
PS A UPS for CPE usually fixes 95% of transmission problems.
I've seen people willing to spend money on multihoming but doing
things on commercial power.
Vadim Antonov writes:
In my (rather extensive) practice, multihoming by itself is
usually a major source of connectivity problems.
Agreed.
Whoever arguing _for_ mulihoming for everyone forgets that
taking more routing information in has dangers not present
when you don't do routing yourself.
I never saw any customer who had the ability to configure a
multihomed site properly on their own; and most of the bogus
routing information comes from multihomed customer sites.
It is _much_ better to multihome to the same provider who then
can take care of messy global routing.
Agreed.
The arguement here (if there is one) is that their is a demand in the
marketplace for multihoming to different providers and what is the
best way to treat these customers. Sprint's filtering is a good
arguement for having multiple Sprint connections or non at all. The
customer that is multihomed to Sprint and a different provider,
however, is still paying Sprint to move their bits around even if
their Sprint connection goes down.
I support all incentives to reduce the number of multihomed customers.
--vadim
PS A UPS for CPE usually fixes 95% of transmission problems.
I've seen people willing to spend money on multihoming but doing
things on commercial power.
And not plugging their routers into outlets on light switches would
also help.
-Hank
Whoever arguing _for_ mulihoming for everyone forgets that
taking more routing information in has dangers not present
when you don't do routing yourself.
Many end-users use the term "multi-homing" as a synonym for "redundant
connectivity". In other words there are ways to satisfy such a customer's
needs without having then run BGP or even having them visible in the
routing tables of the core mesh. However, if an ISP does not inquire into
the customer's needs but merely assumes that they want to run BGP and be
globally visible then you are right, they expose the customer to the
dangers of global routing needlessly.
I never saw any customer who had the ability to configure a
multihomed site properly on their own; and most of the bogus
routing information comes from multihomed customer sites.
It is _much_ better to multihome to the same provider who then
can take care of messy global routing.
Exactly! And we should promote those tier 2 providers like IXA, Netaxs,
TLG and others who can provide this kind of service.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
In my (rather extensive) practice, multihoming by itself is
usually a major source of connectivity problems.
in my meager and bottom-feeding scum-sucking practice, multi-homing
decreased unreliability delivered to our customers by a factor of ten
or more.
this very moment i am sitting at a site which is single-homed to an
anonymous NSP's major POP in a farming town in mid-Cal. i can not get
to www.cisco.com from here. yet i can get to my home net, which is
quite multi-homed, and get to cisco from there.
so, as we say in my family, i smell cows.
It is _much_ better to multihome to the same provider who then
can take care of messy global routing.
just what i always wanted, two connections to a broken provider. you
must be kidding.
randy