Hi, Gert et al. On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Gert Doering wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:14:39PM +0300, Vladimir A. Jakovenko wrote:
Which is not a good practice in any case - I agree on that.
What is a good practice for small company who needs:
1. Small ammount of ip addresses (about /24) 2. Multihoming
The best practive is "to question the need for multihoming".
that ISP will be very happy to provide it... more cash... Viewing it from the angle of a *second* ISP which doesnt have a company as its client, probably they will be happy on getting a new client, independently if they are the main ISP of that client or not... its just a question of more money... If you have a client which is *only* connected to you and he asks you about multihoming, and you say its a bad ideia, you'll be probably seen as wanting to protect your revenue/business. If you go on talking about the global routing table (which is a correct aproach!), the client will not be that much interested, i guess... I mean, im on your side but i can recognize that this is a technical problem, an issue that clients want to see solved without getting even a clue on it.
Multihoming as a solution for *what*? Yes, there are good reasons for wanting to be multihomed, but things like "network stability" and "lower costs" are not the ones.
Especially lower costs... if people want redundancy on line availability they have to pay more for it... About stability, its not impossible, but keeping it simple with only one ISP will cause anybody a whole lot less of headaches.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, ps: Gert, when you get the next shipment of "no-/24's" badges, save me one, ok ? ;-) ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167