Now, I have a question about this... Is the customer using the sites for redundancy, and will have both upstream providers in each site?
Honestly, a small operation like this may be better served by multiple connections to the same provider. Such a setup can usually be done to multiple routers, through redundant circuit paths, and done at substantially less cost that two different providers. And, in my experience, using one provider can often be more reliable than multiple providers, given how many providers transport facilities ride the same fiber path, and sometimes the same bundle.
I have to disagree...
About two years ago, maybe less, Sprint was doing some maintenance in California and was moving stuff through an alternate path in Arizona. However, while the CA path was off, someone took a backhoe to the AZ path. Neither the planned outage, the cut, nor myself were in the same state (I'm in Nevada). It didn't matter how many circuits I had with Sprint, because none of them worked, including my Sprint cell phone. However, I was still on the air because my other providers were unaffected.
Locally, yeah, the path in the ground are probably the same. But beyond that, it can matter, and I strongly recommend multihoming if the story above is something their organization would like to be protected from.
About two years ago, maybe less, Sprint was doing some maintenance in California and was moving stuff through an alternate path in Arizona. However, while the CA path was off, someone took a backhoe to the AZ path. Neither the planned outage, the cut, nor myself were in the same state (I'm in Nevada). It didn't matter how many circuits I had with Sprint, because none of them worked, including my Sprint cell phone. However, I was still on the air because my other providers were unaffected.
I've been in a situation before where circuits with two different providers were both taken out by the same fiber cut. These were large long-haul circuits.
I've had another situation where two circuits out of Charlotte, NC ended up in the same bundle in Virginia, even though they were one was going to Atlanta, and another was headed to DC, through two different providers. One provider bought the bundle from someone, and leased part of it to another company, who sublet it to another company, that provided service to the the carrier that provided us the service. Kicker was that I think it was originally our fiber.
Of course, these are circuits, not internet traffic. With todays' large networks, it's really hard to completely isolate any given city. Oh sure, it can happen, and some cities are unpopular, and don't hardly qualify for IP service, so diversity is hard to justify, but most cities have at least two, if not three or more paths out.
It's always been possible to get resources by lying or committing
fraud - the common law crime of obtaining property by false pretenses
predates the Internet by a substantial margin.
I got a /22 in January, and was told by someone from ARIN that the
policy below only applied to allocations to ISP's, not to assignments
for end customers. At the time, they said an end user must show at
least 25% immediate usage (so a /24) and that there was no requirement
for future usage. In my experience, if you can show you have some
semblance of ability, two real peers, and an existing and established
business, you should be able to get the request through easily in about
a week, start to finish. When you're ready, fill out the request form,
the worst that can happen is they reject you or defer you until you can
provide more info. If you have questions for/about ARIN, call them
(number is on the website) and talk to one of their people, they've been
pretty knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful in my experience.
Is their anyone on the NANOG list from Hughesnet? I'm facing an
issue with reverse DNS (RFC1912) that
is difficult at best to resolve in India.
Please contact me off list.
I have tried everything I can think of to get good technical support
from Hughesnet. I sent a Fed Ex package outlining a problem to the
President. Never heard a word. The people in India where a nightmare.
I worked with one of their sales reps and no satisfaction.
If you find anyone who can help with technical issues, and they are
willing to help another soon to be ex-customer with an issue in Haiti,
let me know.
Has anyone else noticed that the [NANOG] prefix has been missing
intermittently from the list traffic over the last couple of days?
Different SMTP servers, it appears (looks like they might have been using an Ironport box to do anti-spam, and it was probably doing the subject re-writes as well)
With the [NANOG] in subject :
received: from linuxbox.org ([24.155.83.21])
by thor.merit.edu with ESMTP; 20 May 2008 10:27:41 -0400
Without the subject tag :
Received: from nameserver2.ttec.com ([64.95.32.37] helo=smtp.ttec.com)
by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <jmaimon@ttec.com>) id 1JzEFp-0006tP-1S
for nanog@nanog.org; Thu, 22 May 2008 17:07:01 +0000
Add me to the list of never-saw-that. In addition, I just checked the
nanog archives, and there isn't an announcement of that type in the
archives.
Below is the full email, with headers, from Monday. Hopefully it will
put this issue to rest.... but somehow I doubt that.
-Jim P.
Received: by 10.90.53.15 with SMTP id b15cs245753aga;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.10.13 with SMTP id n13mr12798008pyi.30.1211238167720;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org>
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [198.108.95.20])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s59si4779396pyh.13.2008.05.19.16.02.47;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted
sender) client-ip=198.108.95.20;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best
guess record for domain of nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org designates
198.108.95.20 as permitted sender)
smtp.mail=nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=s0.nanog.org)
by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org>)
id 1JyENK-0006V5-UV; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:38 +0000
Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195])
by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <pfs@cisco.com>) id 1JyENI-0006UC-1L
for nanog-announce@nanog.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:36 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,512,1204482600"; d="scan'208";a="107943185"
Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161])
by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2008 04:32:33 +0530
Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94])
by hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4JN2XlM012133
for <nanog-announce@nanog.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 07:02:33 +0800
Received: from Philip-PB.local (sin-vpn-client-20-47.cisco.com [10.68.20.47])
by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4JN2WVp007247
for <nanog-announce@nanog.org>; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:32 GMT
Message-ID: <48320722.70807@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; header.From=pfs@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim1002 verified; );
X-BeenThere: nanog-announce@nanog.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NANOG-Announce <nanog-announce.nanog.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce>,
<mailto:nanog-announce-request@nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog-announce>
List-Post: <mailto:nanog-announce@nanog.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nanog-announce-request@nanog.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce>,
<mailto:nanog-announce-request@nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: nanog-announce-bounces@nanog.org
Hi everyone,
Following the discussion on nanog-futures, we'd like to let you all know
that the [NANOG] in the subject line and the three extra info lines
mailman appends will be dropped from all future messages going to the
NANOG list, starting in around 24 hours from now.
If any of you have you changed your <nanog@nanog.org> e-mail filtering
to depend on the [NANOG] subject tag, please consider this 24 hours
notice to move to another message filtering technique.
The main nanog list is subscribed to nanog-announce. So everything sent to nanog-announce should appear on the nanog list too.
If folks choose to unsubscribe from the nanog list, they will need to subscribe to nanog-announce to carry on seeing announcements.
Hope this clarifies at least this piece for everyone.
Yes it seems as though my "subject tags" e-mail sent around 11pm UTC/GMT on Monday didn't get to some folks on the main list; I'll try and find out what happened there.
When I was sending things to nanog-announce, it was the case that mail to nanog-announce was sent to people who had specifically subscribed to that list, plus anybody who hadn't but who was subscribed to nanog (in other words, it was sent to the union of both lists).
That might have changed since the transition to mailman. It seemed like a useful approach, though.
The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog announce.
When I was sending things to nanog-announce, it was the case that mail to nanog-announce was sent to people who had specifically subscribed to that list, plus anybody who hadn't but who was subscribed to nanog (in other words, it was sent to the union of both lists).
That might have changed since the transition to mailman. It seemed like a useful approach, though.
Kinda makes you wonder what the purpose on the announce list is though. Are there actually people subscribed to nanog-annouce that aren't subscribed to nanog?
