From: Sean Donelan (no email)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 08:25:41 EDT
On Mon, 02 April 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> From the article:
> <quote>
> "Half of the companies that are multihomed should have gotten better service
> from their providers," says Patrik Faltstrom, a Cisco engineer and co-chair
> of the IETF's Applications Area. "ISPs haven't done a good enough job
> explaining to their customers that they don't need to multihome."
> </quote>
Why would a rational customer pay for a second connection (usually more
than doubling their cost) if a single connection was satisfactory? Although
providers try to vertically integrate their operations, time and time again,
vertical integration tends to increase the risk for the customer.
Mid-level providers serve an important function in the Internet hierarchy.
Multi-homing works well with mid-level providers aggregating local routes,
and managing redudancy between long-haul providers. If you don't use a
mid-level provider, to achieve the same reliability you end up needing to
be your own mid-level provider.
Why can't a large provider operate their network as a set of mid-level
networks, and connections to multiple long-haul networks. They could.
|
|
|