On 16/Feb/20 18:08, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > From the perspective of someone just starting out being dual homed, > this will be very different. You are not going to get 7 transits and > you are not going to be able to peer 85% of the traffic. That is why I > advocate that it is better to buy transit from a middle tier company. > Instead of getting a connection to just one so called global carrier, > you get a package deal with connection to all of them and 85% peering > one step removed. Plus many of the companies that the middle tier has > a peering with, is something the tier 1 companies would refuse to peer > (exception Hurricane Electric). > > Also while your company may not need dual connections to each transit, > the situation is completely different from the perspective of a small > dual homed customer of yours. That is a lot of paths that are lost if > this customer where to experience a disruption to the connection to > your network. > > This is especially true if there is an unbalance between the two > chosen transit providers. Say the other provider is Cogent, which are > famous for refusing to peer. That means that all those peers, unless > they have a Cogent contract, they will need to find an indirect path > to replace your peering. > > Of course I may also recommend to simply set your expectations > modestly. Dual homing will get you redundancy but unless you line up > all your ducks correctly, you should expect some brownouts in the case > of a link failure. Simply tell the boss, that unless he wants to pay > at least double in every way, there will be expected downtime in the > order of 5 minuttes in the case of a link failure. Completely agreed, as I highlighted in my post at https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2020-February/105953.html as a response to Adam's original query. Mark.