On 16/May/18 18:59, David Hubbard wrote:
> I’m curious if anyone who’s used 3356 for transit has found shortcomings in > how their peering and redundancy is configured, or what a normal expectation > to have is. The Tampa Bay market has been completely down for 3356 IP > services twice so far this year, each for what I’d consider an unacceptable > period of time (many hours). I’m learning that the entire market is served > by just two fiber routes, through cities hundreds of miles away in either > direction. So, basically two fiber cuts, potentially 1000+ miles apart, > takes the entire region down. The most recent occurrence was a week or so > ago when a Miami-area cut and an Orange, Texas cut (1287 driving miles apart) > took IP services down for hours. It did not take point to point circuits to > out of market locations down, so that suggests they even have the ability to > be more redundant and simply choose not to. > > I feel like it’s not unreasonable to expect more redundancy, or a much > smaller attack surface given a disgruntled lineman who knows the routes could > take an entire region down with a planned cut four states apart. Maybe other > regions are better designed? Or are my expectations unreasonable? I carry > three peers in that market, so it hasn’t been outage-causing, but I use 3356 > in other markets too, and have plans for more, but it makes me wonder if I > just haven't had the pleasure of similar outages elsewhere yet and I should > factor that expectation into the design. It creates a problem for me in one > location where I can only get them and Cogent, since Cogent can't be relied > on for IPv6 service, which I need. Are Century Link your only option? Mark.
