|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [FW1] Multiple WAN Links.
We have a Full T1 to our ISP. We just purchased a "Shadow" T1 with BGP terminating in a city about 400 miles away from where our current T1 terminates. We are on a Fiber Ring locally, which has native redundancy. Adding BPG and the Shadow T1 will increase our monthly Internet Access rate by about 40%, which is not bad. BGP is an additional module that plugs into our Cisco Router. We configure the router to take PATH1 all the time, and PATH2 only when PATH1 is down. Alternatively, they both could be up and both could have an equal cost path. If I understand it correctly, the traffic will go along the T1 that has the lowest cost path. If they are equal, it will always choose to cost path with the lowest MAC address. Edwin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Mark L. Decker Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:53 PM To: 'iden fw'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] Multiple WAN Links. > You would be surprised how many customers order 2 circuits > to their ISP, and then don't know that the T1s > terminate in the same channelized DS-3 card in the same > Cascade 9000/500 switch, that can ride the same fiber over > to the ISPs router. Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised... ;) > Telco could be the problem... if both circuits are ordered > from the same carrier, and ride common facilities... again, > alot of times customers do not ask for circuit path diversity. ;-) Very good point. Having worked for a carrier/ISP, I can say that this would be the rule, rather than the exception. Even if you ask for diversity, how do you know you're actually getting it? I think the only way to guarantee real diversity is to provision the circuits through different carriers to different ISPs. Ideally, one T1 through the LEC, and a 2nd through a CLEC. (e.g.: T3 through Brooks Fiber to UUnet, and a T3 through Pacific Bell to Sprint) (another e.g.: DSL through Pacific Bell Internet and cable modem through ATT@home). If you're not fortunate enough to have a choice of local access vendors, at least going to two different ISPs is better than requesting diversity from the same ISP. Also, choosing different access services from the same vendor helps, such as a leased T1 and a FR T1. > > You'd need some kind of intelligent DNS to do that, maybe > > custom scripting or a product like 3DNS. > > Yet another product to configure, troubleshoot, keep > up-to-date on patches, purchase, support contracts... ugh. It doesn't have to be that bad. Even without a fancy tool like 3DNS, you could just write a script for an existing DNS server to have it round-robin among addresses to achieve basic load sharing for inbound connections. That said, RainWall as a multi-homing solution probably makes more sense for folks who do primarily outbound browsing and mail, and host their website externally at a colo. For people hosting a big website internally, especially an e-commerce site, BGP may be well worth the extra expense and hassle. > I think your estimate of $12,000 for an empty 3640 chassis > might be a bit high. Maybe not... I wish it were. List price for a Cisco 3640 chassis with IP-only IOS and 128M DRAM is US $12,260, and that's without any LAN/WAN cards, extra flash, or anything. Add 8MB flash, a 1E2W module and a T1 WIC, and you're up to $15,460 for a typically configured unit, plus maintenance of $1,000 or more per year. They ain't exactly cheap. :-( Mark L. Decker Rainfinity [email protected] ============================================================================ ==== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ============================================================================ ==== http://www.primeinc.com ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to the sender of the message. The views expressed in this correspondence may not reflect the views of Prime, Inc. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************** ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
