- Previous message: Michael G: "Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?"
- In reply to: (no name): "Re: Multihoming for the small ISP ( search engine) ala 2005"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: james edwards (no email)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 11:34:30 EST
> As long as they have a /24 that they can announce, two or more upstreams
> that are able and willing to establish BGP sessions with them and a router
> with enough memory to hold at least 2 full views (for a Cisco, you
> probably want 256MB or more these days), they can multi (or dual) home.
They many not need anything near 2 full tables. A default plus providers own
and customer routes
could do, and would require less memory/smaller router.
James H. Edwards
Routing and Security Administrator
At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa
http://www.cybermesa.com/ContactCM
(505) 795-7101
|
|
|