Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Nathan Ward]

> I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private side 
> also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.  
> It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.

Configure ports as you need them, don’t mess about pre-defining blocks of ports 
for certain uses, or trying to group ports together based on some requirement. 
Within a line card or where all ports are functionally equal, the only guide 
about which port to use for which thing should be when that thing showed up, 
and if multiple show up at the same time, whichever port makes the cabling 
easier.

Trying to come up with some sort of policy about which ports to use for things 
is going to need to be broken and have exceptions at some point - it always 
does, and if you’ve trained people that the first half of the switch is one 
thing and the second another, they’re going to get confused and break something 
when that isn’t true anymore.

Don’t put routers or firewalls or whatever in the last port like some people 
do, they are just hosts like everything else and at some point you’re going to 
need to move from one to another to upgrade and now you’re using the second to 
last port. Same goes for other switches you might connect, same reasoning.

--
Nathan Ward
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Michael Malitsky]

Jason,

3560 has a small buffer, which may cause performance problems depending on the 
traffic patterns you see (microbursts are what overwhelms the buffer).  I would 
suggest looking at 3650 instead - newer and more powerful.  As someone else 
mentioned, you'll need the IPSERVICES license, which drives up the cost.  
Again, depending on the amount and pattern of traffic, a pair of 29XX with a 
pair of 3650s with LAN BASE licenses may be more functional and more economical.

Sincerely,
Michael Malitsky

--
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:43:40 -0700
From: Jason Berenson <jberen...@vinylinteractive.com>
To: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [c-nsp] Multihoming
Message-ID: <55e4a05c.1010...@vinylinteractive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed

Greetings,

Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about multihoming.  
I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I was thinking about a 
pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I was going to take default 
routes from each, one with a higher metric and announce my prefix over the 
primary link and pad the secondary link.  No customer or full tables needed.

I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private side 
also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.  
It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.

Thanks!

Jason.

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Multihoming

[Jason Berenson]

Greetings,

Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about 
multihoming.  I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I 
was thinking about a pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I 
was going to take default routes from each, one with a higher metric and 
announce my prefix over the primary link and pad the secondary link.  No 
customer or full tables needed.


I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private 
side also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly 
appreciated.  It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.


Thanks!

Jason.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Мурат Каипов]

Hello Jason.
You can do BGP and multihoming on Cat 3560 since you got 2 byte AS number, with 
4 byte AS number you won’t.
> 31 авг. 2015 г., в 21:43, Jason Berenson  
> написал(а):
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about multihoming.  
> I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I was thinking about 
> a pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I was going to take default 
> routes from each, one with a higher metric and announce my prefix over the 
> primary link and pad the secondary link.  No customer or full tables needed.
> 
> I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private side 
> also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.  
> It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jason.
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Jason Berenson wrote:

Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about multihoming. 
I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I was thinking about 
a pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I was going to take default 
routes from each, one with a higher metric and announce my prefix over the 
primary link and pad the secondary link.  No customer or full tables needed.


I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private side 
also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. 
It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.


You might need to get your IPv4 space from one of your upstream providers. 
As far as ARIN is concerned, that well is dry.


You will also want to start giving serious thought to IPv6.

I don't know how well 3560s handle BGP, but if you're just taking default 
routes from your upstreams, the resource needs are pretty light.  As the 
other person who responded mentioned - 4-byte ASNs could be an issue as 
well.


You can accept the default route from provider A with a default 
local-preference and the one from provider B with a lower local-pref.  For 
outbound advertisements, as you mentioned, you can prepend your AS a few 
times on your announcement to provider B.  You'll also want to run IBGP 
between the two 3560s.


When you say "half public, half private", can you clarify what you're 
trying to do?


jms
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Reuben Farrelly via cisco-nsp]

--- Begin Message ---



On 1/09/2015 6:43 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Jason Berenson wrote:


Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about
multihoming. I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I
was thinking about a pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I
was going to take default routes from each, one with a higher metric
and announce my prefix over the primary link and pad the secondary
link.  No customer or full tables needed.

I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half
private side also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be
greatly appreciated. It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.


You might need to get your IPv4 space from one of your upstream
providers. As far as ARIN is concerned, that well is dry.

You will also want to start giving serious thought to IPv6.

I don't know how well 3560s handle BGP, but if you're just taking
default routes from your upstreams, the resource needs are pretty
light.  As the other person who responded mentioned - 4-byte ASNs could
be an issue as well.


3560's handle 4 byte ASNs just fine provided:

- You have sufficient flash.  4 byte ASN support in the Catalyst 
platforms was introduced in 15.2(1)E so this is the absolute minimum 
version you will need to run - and this image (in fact anything newer 
than 12.2(55)SE) requires 32M flash.


- You have the IPSERVICES image/license as BGP is not supported in IPBASE.

As you're only handling a handful of prefixes if you meet the 
requirements above you should be fine.


Reuben
--- End Message ---
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Jason Berenson]

Justin,

You're right, a 4-byte ASN on the 3560's won't work.  I might see if 
ARIN will reassign me a 2-byte ASN instead.  If not, I'll have to go 
with something like a 28XX software based router and a pair of 2960G's 
for switches.  I was just hoping to do it all in two boxes instead of 4.


My plan is to have ports in front of the firewalls as well as ports 
behind the firewall.  I'll also create a separate VLAN for internal (non 
routed traffic only) between hosts but might just use another switch for 
that.


We may not have the same bandwidth from both providers, if we do then 
letting BGP decide would be fine, I think.


Jason.

On 8/31/15 1:43 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Jason Berenson wrote:


Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about multihoming.
I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now.  I was thinking about
a pair of Cisco 3560's one for each provider and I was going to take default
routes from each, one with a higher metric and announce my prefix over the
primary link and pad the secondary link.  No customer or full tables needed.

I was thinking about vlan'ing each switch into half public half private side
also.  Any pointers or tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
It's been a while since doing this type of stuff.

You might need to get your IPv4 space from one of your upstream providers.
As far as ARIN is concerned, that well is dry.

You will also want to start giving serious thought to IPv6.

I don't know how well 3560s handle BGP, but if you're just taking default
routes from your upstreams, the resource needs are pretty light.  As the
other person who responded mentioned - 4-byte ASNs could be an issue as
well.

You can accept the default route from provider A with a default
local-preference and the one from provider B with a lower local-pref.  For
outbound advertisements, as you mentioned, you can prepend your AS a few
times on your announcement to provider B.  You'll also want to run IBGP
between the two 3560s.

When you say "half public, half private", can you clarify what you're
trying to do?

jms


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Martin T]

At the moment I have a following setup:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png

The ISP-A connection is the primary link and the ISP-B connection(over
WiMAX) is the backup one. In case the primary link fails, I physically
plug out the fiber-optical converter cable from my Cisco router(Cisco
1841) and insert the one from WiMAX device. In addition, I reconfigure
the IP parameters in the router. This is probably the most manual
multihoming possible :) I'm ready to upgrade my router so it
supports two Ethernet cables.

a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
automatically switch over to backup connection?

b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
the services of two different IPSs?


While I'm afraid the latter is impossible, the first automatic
switchover should be somehow doable, shouldn't it? As I told, I'm
ready to invest into new equipment if it's necessary.

PS I'm aware, that probably the most elegant solution would be a BGP
sessions with ISP routers over different last-mile technologies. This
would provide fast failover and I could use one IP address.


What are the best practices for multihome connection over two different ISP's?


regards,
martin
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Asking for the best solution: Yes its via BGP
provided that you have you own Public IP space and ASN otherwise its not
possible with 2 different ISPs. Adding HWIC-2FE would serve the physical
requirement in your scenario.

m2c

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:

 At the moment I have a following setup:

 http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png

 The ISP-A connection is the primary link and the ISP-B connection(over
 WiMAX) is the backup one. In case the primary link fails, I physically
 plug out the fiber-optical converter cable from my Cisco router(Cisco
 1841) and insert the one from WiMAX device. In addition, I reconfigure
 the IP parameters in the router. This is probably the most manual
 multihoming possible :) I'm ready to upgrade my router so it
 supports two Ethernet cables.

 a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
 connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
 www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
 automatically switch over to backup connection?

 b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
 the services of two different IPSs?


 While I'm afraid the latter is impossible, the first automatic
 switchover should be somehow doable, shouldn't it? As I told, I'm
 ready to invest into new equipment if it's necessary.

 PS I'm aware, that probably the most elegant solution would be a BGP
 sessions with ISP routers over different last-mile technologies. This
 would provide fast failover and I could use one IP address.


 What are the best practices for multihome connection over two different
 ISP's?


 regards,
 martin
 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Martin T]

Aftab,
HWIC-2FE was exactly the card I was looking as well. As I don't have a
public IP address space and ASN, what options are left there in order
to achieve automatic failover?


regards,
martin


2011/8/8 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com:
 Asking for the best solution: Yes its via BGP
 provided that you have you own Public IP space and ASN otherwise its not
 possible with 2 different ISPs. Adding HWIC-2FE would serve the physical
 requirement in your scenario.

 m2c
 Regards,

 Aftab A. Siddiqui


 On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:

 At the moment I have a following setup:

 http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png

 The ISP-A connection is the primary link and the ISP-B connection(over
 WiMAX) is the backup one. In case the primary link fails, I physically
 plug out the fiber-optical converter cable from my Cisco router(Cisco
 1841) and insert the one from WiMAX device. In addition, I reconfigure
 the IP parameters in the router. This is probably the most manual
 multihoming possible :) I'm ready to upgrade my router so it
 supports two Ethernet cables.

 a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
 connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
 www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
 automatically switch over to backup connection?

 b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
 the services of two different IPSs?


 While I'm afraid the latter is impossible, the first automatic
 switchover should be somehow doable, shouldn't it? As I told, I'm
 ready to invest into new equipment if it's necessary.

 PS I'm aware, that probably the most elegant solution would be a BGP
 sessions with ISP routers over different last-mile technologies. This
 would provide fast failover and I could use one IP address.


 What are the best practices for multihome connection over two different
 ISP's?


 regards,
 martin
 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/



___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Stick with multihoming with Single ISP. i.e. get 2 last miles with the ISP
and a public pool to advertise and manage the auto failover via BGP.

Secondly you can achieve multihoming with 2 ISP using IP SLA, though it is
not a best practice but surely workable. Take a look at the following link.

http://www.nil.com/ipcorner/SmallSiteMultiHoming/

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:

 Aftab,
 HWIC-2FE was exactly the card I was looking as well. As I don't have a
 public IP address space and ASN, what options are left there in order
 to achieve automatic failover?


 regards,
 martin


 2011/8/8 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com:
  Asking for the best solution: Yes its via BGP
  provided that you have you own Public IP space and ASN otherwise its not
  possible with 2 different ISPs. Adding HWIC-2FE would serve the physical
  requirement in your scenario.
 
  m2c
  Regards,
 
  Aftab A. Siddiqui
 
 
  On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  At the moment I have a following setup:
 
  http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png
 
  The ISP-A connection is the primary link and the ISP-B connection(over
  WiMAX) is the backup one. In case the primary link fails, I physically
  plug out the fiber-optical converter cable from my Cisco router(Cisco
  1841) and insert the one from WiMAX device. In addition, I reconfigure
  the IP parameters in the router. This is probably the most manual
  multihoming possible :) I'm ready to upgrade my router so it
  supports two Ethernet cables.
 
  a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
  connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
  www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
  automatically switch over to backup connection?
 
  b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
  the services of two different IPSs?
 
 
  While I'm afraid the latter is impossible, the first automatic
  switchover should be somehow doable, shouldn't it? As I told, I'm
  ready to invest into new equipment if it's necessary.
 
  PS I'm aware, that probably the most elegant solution would be a BGP
  sessions with ISP routers over different last-mile technologies. This
  would provide fast failover and I could use one IP address.
 
 
  What are the best practices for multihome connection over two different
  ISP's?
 
 
  regards,
  martin
  ___
  cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
  https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
  archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
 
 

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:


Asking for the best solution: Yes its via BGP
provided that you have you own Public IP space and ASN otherwise its not
possible with 2 different ISPs. Adding HWIC-2FE would serve the physical
requirement in your scenario.


BGP is the best way to go, and you certainly can multihome with BGP using 
IP space assigned by one of the ISPs.  Lots of AS's do that.


More below...


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:


At the moment I have a following setup:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png

a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
automatically switch over to backup connection?

b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
the services of two different IPSs?


You can do poor man's multihoming using 2 ISPs (no BGP) by doing 
reachability testing of something or things out on the internet, and 
changing your default gateway when you think the primary connection has 
failed.  You'll have to use NAT/PAT such that when you're going out 
through ISP-A, your outside NAT address is an ISP-A address, and when 
you're going out through ISP-B, your outside NAT address is an ISP-B 
address.  With a bit of policy routing, you can even keep both the ISP-A 
and ISP-B connections up and usable simultaneously.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] multihoming solution over two different ISP's

[Joe Maimon]

Get a 2950 or even a 3524XL, use vlans and subinterfaces.

Use BGP if available.

Otherwise, if you are already using NAT, then this should work fine.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/12_3x/12_3xe/feature/guide/dbackupx.html

https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-8313

If you need redundancy and incoming IP reachability, and you cannot get 
BGP/Public IP addresses from your existing ISP's, you can obtain it from 
other ISP's, even if all they can offer you is a tunnel.


Joe

Martin T wrote:

At the moment I have a following setup:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4227/252530.png

The ISP-A connection is the primary link and the ISP-B connection(over
WiMAX) is the backup one. In case the primary link fails, I physically
plug out the fiber-optical converter cable from my Cisco router(Cisco
1841) and insert the one from WiMAX device. In addition, I reconfigure
the IP parameters in the router. This is probably the most manual
multihoming possible :) I'm ready to upgrade my router so it
supports two Ethernet cables.

a) Is it somehow possible to automatically switch over to another one
connection in case the primary one fails. For example ping
www.google.com over a period of time and in case it doesn't respond,
automatically switch over to backup connection?

b) Is it somehow possible to have one static IP address while using
the services of two different IPSs?


While I'm afraid the latter is impossible, the first automatic
switchover should be somehow doable, shouldn't it? As I told, I'm
ready to invest into new equipment if it's necessary.

PS I'm aware, that probably the most elegant solution would be a BGP
sessions with ISP routers over different last-mile technologies. This
would provide fast failover and I could use one IP address.


What are the best practices for multihome connection over two different ISP's?


regards,
martin
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/



___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Multihoming

[Rocker Feller]

Hi,

I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any guidance on how as
a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.

Can I achieve this when I have a /29 from ISP1 and do not have my own PI
ips?

All my services dns, email, wan are hosted by the ISP1.

Any assistance on this will be appreciated.

Rocker
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Yap Chin Hoong -]

Hi Rocker,

   Have a look into F5 GTM. Thanks. :-)

regards,
YapCH

http://itcertguides.blogspot.com/
 Message: 10
 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:00:56 +0300
 From: Rocker Feller rocker.rockerfel...@gmail.com
 To: cisco_nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 Subject: [c-nsp] Multihoming
 Message-ID:
   aanlktinxk4x=mkhemosmualwi6=jst-xw+aaii9g+...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
 Hi,
 
 I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any guidance on how as
 a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.
 
 Can I achieve this when I have a /29 from ISP1 and do not have my own PI
 ips?
 
 All my services dns, email, wan are hosted by the ISP1.
 
 Any assistance on this will be appreciated.
 
 Rocker
 
  
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Walter Keen]

 Not many options for you I'm afraid.  Some people filter out routes 
smaller than a /24.  Even if you had a /24 from ISP1, you would then 
have to get their permission to have ISP2 advertise it.  Most aren't 
willing to do this.


Is a micro (/24) allocation from ARIN (if in the US) a possibility?  If 
so, you could then run BGP to multiple providers and make this a very 
simple configuration.  If not, you'll likely have to rely on 
application-layer redundancy.  You can prioritize MX records if you are 
hosting your mail on-site through ISP1's ip addressing (what you stated 
seemed a bit unclear), and you could probably do some round-robin DNS 
entries for web hosting, but it won't be perfect.


On 09/15/2010 02:00 AM, Rocker Feller wrote:

Hi,

I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any guidance on how as
a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.

Can I achieve this when I have a /29 from ISP1 and do not have my own PI
ips?

All my services dns, email, wan are hosted by the ISP1.

Any assistance on this will be appreciated.

Rocker
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Voigt, Thomas]

Hi Rocker,

Rocker Feller wrote:

 I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any 
 guidance on how as
 a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.

You need PI space to do this. Because each ISP can only route his own PA spaces 
plus the PI spaces from his customers.

Maybe there could be a solution with doing some NAT on ISP2 to let your PA 
space  from ISP1 look like PA space from ISP2.
This could do redundancy in upstream direction but not in downstream.

But if you have some public servers you need PI space. 

-- 
Greetings

Thomas
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Heath Jones]

You could probably get away with a second provider if you implement NAT and
don't really need to provide services to the outside world from that
location. For example if it was an office connection and you really just
needed internet access with some redundancy.

If things are more complicated than that - for instance if you are hosting
incoming vpn connections, web services etc from that site, you really should
look into getting your own IP space when you start talking about multiple
providers, for instance if ISP1 goes down and you are providing these
services, you are pretty much screwed. As Walter suggested, you can play
with DNS a bit and move things around - but it is a very manual time
consuming process and services will be unworkable during the transition.


On 15 September 2010 10:00, Rocker Feller rocker.rockerfel...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi,

 I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any guidance on how as
 a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.

 Can I achieve this when I have a /29 from ISP1 and do not have my own PI
 ips?

 All my services dns, email, wan are hosted by the ISP1.

 Any assistance on this will be appreciated.

 Rocker
 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Seth Mattinen]

On 9/15/10 2:26 AM, Walter Keen wrote:
  Not many options for you I'm afraid.  Some people filter out routes
 smaller than a /24.  Even if you had a /24 from ISP1, you would then
 have to get their permission to have ISP2 advertise it.  Most aren't
 willing to do this.
 
 Is a micro (/24) allocation from ARIN (if in the US) a possibility?  If
 so, you could then run BGP to multiple providers and make this a very
 simple configuration.  If not, you'll likely have to rely on
 application-layer redundancy.  You can prioritize MX records if you are
 hosting your mail on-site through ISP1's ip addressing (what you stated
 seemed a bit unclear), and you could probably do some round-robin DNS
 entries for web hosting, but it won't be perfect.
 


You can now get a /24 in ARIN land if you're an end user.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_2.html

~Seth
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Jon Lewis]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Walter Keen wrote:

Not many options for you I'm afraid.  Some people filter out routes smaller 
than a /24.  Even if you had a /24 from ISP1, you would then have to get 
their permission to have ISP2 advertise it.  Most aren't willing to do this.


Huh?  Get a /24 from one of the ISPs.  Get an ASN from ARIN or whoever is 
the appropriate registry for your area.  Advertise (BGP) that /24 to both 
ISPs.  I've never heard of an ISP not allowing this (except that most 
probably won't do BGP with you if you're on a low end connection like 
DSL/cable.  If you have some sort of leased line or ethernet connectivity 
to each provider, it shouldn't be an issue.


Is a micro (/24) allocation from ARIN (if in the US) a possibility?  If so, 
you could then run BGP to multiple providers and make this a very simple 
configuration.  If not, you'll likely have to rely on application-layer 
redundancy.  You can prioritize MX records if you are hosting your mail 
on-site through ISP1's ip addressing (what you stated seemed a bit unclear), 
and you could probably do some round-robin DNS entries for web hosting, but 
it won't be perfect.


Another option might be to get a small amount of space from each provider, 
and VPN into something more stable/better connected.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Jon Lewis]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Voigt, Thomas wrote:


Hi Rocker,

Rocker Feller wrote:


I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any
guidance on how as
a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.


You need PI space to do this. Because each ISP can only route his own PA spaces 
plus the PI spaces from his customers.


You don't need PI space to multihome.  At least not in the ARIN region. 
You do generally need at least a /24 if you want any reasonable chance of 
the internet accepting your BGP announcement.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Heath Jones]

Jon there seems to be a bit of a common belief that advertising a /24 or
some prefix that has been assigned by a provider, out to another provider,
is bad practise. I don't get it either and haven't seen issues myself.

The only scenario I can think of is (in some odd configurations) when the
original provider sees part of their own network being advertised by another
ISP, they filter it and it breaks connectivity, or the original provider's
igp contains that prefix somehow already.. ?






On 15 September 2010 16:17, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:

 On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Voigt, Thomas wrote:

 Hi Rocker,

 Rocker Feller wrote:

 I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any
 guidance on how as
 a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.


 You need PI space to do this. Because each ISP can only route his own PA
 spaces plus the PI spaces from his customers.


 You don't need PI space to multihome.  At least not in the ARIN region. You
 do generally need at least a /24 if you want any reasonable chance of the
 internet accepting your BGP announcement.


 --
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net|
 _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
 ___
  cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Jon Lewis]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Heath Jones wrote:


Jon there seems to be a bit of a common belief that advertising a /24 or
some prefix that has been assigned by a provider, out to another provider,
is bad practise. I don't get it either and haven't seen issues myself.


This is done quite a bit, as (again, I'm only familiar with practices in 
the ARIN region) this is basically the only way a small organization (ISP 
or end user) could multihome in the past.  ARIN just adopted a policy 
allowing multihomed end users to get a PI /24.  So that's an option now as 
well.



The only scenario I can think of is (in some odd configurations) when the
original provider sees part of their own network being advertised by another
ISP, they filter it and it breaks connectivity, or the original provider's
igp contains that prefix somehow already.. ?


Ideally, both ISPs would be aware of your intentions to multihome and not 
be dumb enough to filter your announcement via the other ISP.  It wouldn't 
surprise me if that sort of filtering has happened though.


Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if your ISP broke your prefix filter, 
didn't use prefix filters, lost your interface config, assigned your 
interface /30 to another customer, or fundamentally altered your 
route-map (if they have one) such that they stopped accepting some of your 
routes.  I've seen all these things happen.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Joseph Jackson]

I currently do this for one of my sites and haven't had any issues.
You just get a LOA from the ISP you get your /24 from and send it to
the other ISP.  Easy Peasy.



On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jon there seems to be a bit of a common belief that advertising a /24 or
 some prefix that has been assigned by a provider, out to another provider,
 is bad practise. I don't get it either and haven't seen issues myself.

 The only scenario I can think of is (in some odd configurations) when the
 original provider sees part of their own network being advertised by another
 ISP, they filter it and it breaks connectivity, or the original provider's
 igp contains that prefix somehow already.. ?






 On 15 September 2010 16:17, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:

 On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Voigt, Thomas wrote:

 Hi Rocker,

 Rocker Feller wrote:

 I am pretty new to this concept and would appreciate any
 guidance on how as
 a customer I can achieve redundacy with autofailover between 2 ISPs.


 You need PI space to do this. Because each ISP can only route his own PA
 spaces plus the PI spaces from his customers.


 You don't need PI space to multihome.  At least not in the ARIN region. You
 do generally need at least a /24 if you want any reasonable chance of the
 internet accepting your BGP announcement.


 --
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
 _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
 ___
  cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-...@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-...@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Keegan Holley]

It looks like this subject has been beat to death so I'll skip the usual
about obtaining a /24 form ARIN and a public ASN.  Global load-balancing is
an option as it allows you to fail over your DNS entries to the second
providers IP space.  This pretty much negates the need for BGP if all you
were using it for was failover.  There are also companies that offer global
load-balancing as a service so you don't have to worry about managing the
box itself.  It's DNS based so the load-balancer itself can be anywhere in
the world technically.  Redundancy is usually taken care of as well.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Keegan Holley]

One last comment.  There are alot of people suggesting that you find a way
to advertise the /29 to the other ISP.  This is not possible.  The ISP that
gave it to you probably isn't willing to de-aggregate it when sending it to
the internet and the ISP that needs to accept it probably doesn't accept
blocks under a certain size to keep their routing table sizes under control.
 If you look at a route server in another AS you'll probably only see a /21
or better that contains your block.  ISP's normally advertise aggregates
only unless the customer was assigned a large block (/24 or better for most)
and requested that they do so.  Then they advertise both.


On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.comwrote:

 It looks like this subject has been beat to death so I'll skip the usual
 about obtaining a /24 form ARIN and a public ASN.  Global load-balancing is
 an option as it allows you to fail over your DNS entries to the second
 providers IP space.  This pretty much negates the need for BGP if all you
 were using it for was failover.  There are also companies that offer global
 load-balancing as a service so you don't have to worry about managing the
 box itself.  It's DNS based so the load-balancer itself can be anywhere in
 the world technically.  Redundancy is usually taken care of as well.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Tim Huffman]

Another option might be to get a small amount of space from each provider, 
and VPN into something more stable/better connected.

Something I've been considering is to have the customer build a GRE tunnel (its 
Internet traffic anyway) back to our router over their other ISP's connection. 
We could then route their public IP space over either connection.

It doesn't give all the same benefits of BGP (for example, if something happens 
to my AS or router, the customer is screwed), but it should make for cheap and 
easy multihoming.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Tim Huffman
Director of Engineering
BOB - Business Only Broadband, LLC
O (630) 590-6012
C (630) 340-1925
t...@bobbroadband.com
www.bobbroadband.com



-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net 
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:15 AM
To: Walter Keen
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Walter Keen wrote:

 Not many options for you I'm afraid.  Some people filter out routes smaller 
 than a /24.  Even if you had a /24 from ISP1, you would then have to get 
 their permission to have ISP2 advertise it.  Most aren't willing to do this.

Huh?  Get a /24 from one of the ISPs.  Get an ASN from ARIN or whoever is 
the appropriate registry for your area.  Advertise (BGP) that /24 to both 
ISPs.  I've never heard of an ISP not allowing this (except that most 
probably won't do BGP with you if you're on a low end connection like 
DSL/cable.  If you have some sort of leased line or ethernet connectivity 
to each provider, it shouldn't be an issue.

 Is a micro (/24) allocation from ARIN (if in the US) a possibility?  If so, 
 you could then run BGP to multiple providers and make this a very simple 
 configuration.  If not, you'll likely have to rely on application-layer 
 redundancy.  You can prioritize MX records if you are hosting your mail 
 on-site through ISP1's ip addressing (what you stated seemed a bit unclear), 
 and you could probably do some round-robin DNS entries for web hosting, but 
 it won't be perfect.

Another option might be to get a small amount of space from each provider, 
and VPN into something more stable/better connected.

--
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Heath Jones]

Yeah it would work - 2 tunnels and routing done on your side.. Problem is
increased latency, jitter and lack of QOS, but for data traffic / backup /
something else that needs redundancy it should be ok. You could provide
managed firewalls etc etc for them - it's a product if thats what your
asking.. ;)



On 15 September 2010 17:42, Tim Huffman t...@bobbroadband.com wrote:

 Another option might be to get a small amount of space from each provider,
 and VPN into something more stable/better connected.

 Something I've been considering is to have the customer build a GRE tunnel
 (its Internet traffic anyway) back to our router over their other ISP's
 connection. We could then route their public IP space over either
 connection.

 It doesn't give all the same benefits of BGP (for example, if something
 happens to my AS or router, the customer is screwed), but it should make for
 cheap and easy multihoming.

 Anybody have any thoughts on this?

 Tim Huffman
 Director of Engineering
 BOB - Business Only Broadband, LLC
 O (630) 590-6012
 C (630) 340-1925
 t...@bobbroadband.com
 www.bobbroadband.com



 -Original Message-
 From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:
 cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
 Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:15 AM
 To: Walter Keen
 Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

  On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Walter Keen wrote:

  Not many options for you I'm afraid.  Some people filter out routes
 smaller
  than a /24.  Even if you had a /24 from ISP1, you would then have to get
  their permission to have ISP2 advertise it.  Most aren't willing to do
 this.

 Huh?  Get a /24 from one of the ISPs.  Get an ASN from ARIN or whoever is
 the appropriate registry for your area.  Advertise (BGP) that /24 to both
 ISPs.  I've never heard of an ISP not allowing this (except that most
 probably won't do BGP with you if you're on a low end connection like
 DSL/cable.  If you have some sort of leased line or ethernet connectivity
 to each provider, it shouldn't be an issue.

  Is a micro (/24) allocation from ARIN (if in the US) a possibility?  If
 so,
  you could then run BGP to multiple providers and make this a very simple
  configuration.  If not, you'll likely have to rely on application-layer
  redundancy.  You can prioritize MX records if you are hosting your mail
  on-site through ISP1's ip addressing (what you stated seemed a bit
 unclear),
  and you could probably do some round-robin DNS entries for web hosting,
 but
  it won't be perfect.

 Another option might be to get a small amount of space from each provider,
 and VPN into something more stable/better connected.

 --
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net|
 _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming

[Andrew Miehs]

Sent from my iPhone

On 15.09.2010, at 18:42, Tim Huffman t...@bobbroadband.com wrote:


 Something I've been considering is to have the customer build a GRE tunnel 
 (its Internet traffic anyway) back to our router over their other ISP's 
 connection. We could then route their public IP space over either connection.

You will probably have a lot of problems with Path MTU discovery.

Andree
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

[Seth Mattinen]

Pablo Almido wrote:
 Hi All, I am planning to configure Multihoming for my network in my
 job, I have a class C  /24 to announce, we have recently getting our
 own ASN, currently we have 1 router 2801,  I want to take only a
 default route from each provider, and announnce my network to each
 ISP, I have read in another posts that I have as minimal 256 DRAM,
 but I want to know If is possible my router can work well with 128
 DRAM only taking default routes.
 If I had to buy more memory  (it is expensive for me)   where I can
 find third party memory as kingston or other well-known manufacturers?
 Can Anyone give me some links.
 For peering with my other ISP can I buy a router 1841 with 128 or more
 DRAM memory or I should purchase other router 2801.  We have both
 circuits with 4MB for internet access.


128 is fine for default routes. If you want to get a little fancy but 
not go full routes, your upstreams may have the option to send you only 
customer routes with a default route. (Even a partial feed may require 
some trimming with 128 - not sure, never tried it with less than 256).

~Seth
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

[Nate Carlson]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote:
 128 is fine for default routes. If you want to get a little fancy but 
 not go full routes, your upstreams may have the option to send you only 
 customer routes with a default route. (Even a partial feed may require 
 some trimming with 128 - not sure, never tried it with less than 256).

It's worth noting that it's dirt cheap to get the 2801 up to 384mb.

http://www.natecarlson.com/blog/2007/07/17/cisco-2801s-use-standard-laptop-memory/


| nate carlson | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.natecarlson.com |
|   depriving some poor village of its idiot since 1981|

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

[Seth Mattinen]

Nate Carlson wrote:
 On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote:
 128 is fine for default routes. If you want to get a little fancy but 
 not go full routes, your upstreams may have the option to send you 
 only customer routes with a default route. (Even a partial feed may 
 require some trimming with 128 - not sure, never tried it with less 
 than 256).
 
 It's worth noting that it's dirt cheap to get the 2801 up to 384mb.
 
 http://www.natecarlson.com/blog/2007/07/17/cisco-2801s-use-standard-laptop-memory/
  
 

I've always been curious if it'll address more; anyone ever tried larger 
DIMMs?

~Seth
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

[Pablo Almido]

Hi All, I am planning to configure Multihoming for my network in my
job, I have a class C  /24 to announce, we have recently getting our
own ASN, currently we have 1 router 2801,  I want to take only a
default route from each provider, and announnce my network to each
ISP, I have read in another posts that I have as minimal 256 DRAM,
but I want to know If is possible my router can work well with 128
DRAM only taking default routes.
If I had to buy more memory  (it is expensive for me)   where I can
find third party memory as kingston or other well-known manufacturers?
Can Anyone give me some links.
For peering with my other ISP can I buy a router 1841 with 128 or more
DRAM memory or I should purchase other router 2801.  We have both
circuits with 4MB for internet access.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/