[nsp] inbound failover without BGP?

[Tim Devries]

This might be kind of OT, but has anyone heard of any new developments in
the area of SRV records (dns)?  Most browsers don't seem to support them,
but it looks like SRV records could be useful in this situation for at least
some network services.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Furnish, Trever G" <TGFurnish@herff-jones.com>
To: "'Tony Tauber'" <ttauber@genuity.net>
Cc: "Cisco NSP List (E-mail)" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: [nsp] inbound failover without BGP?


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Tauber [mailto:ttauber@genuity.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:34 AM
> > To: Furnish, Trever G
> > Cc: Cisco NSP List (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] inbound failover without BGP?
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Furnish, Trever G wrote:
> > > Is there any way to provide failover routing of INBOUND traffic
> > > using links from multiple providers, OTHER THAN running BGP with
> > > those providers?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > But wasteful or not, having inbound failover is a requirement for
> > > most commercial web sites that provide service to paying customers.
> > > If the link from Provider1 fails, the inbound connections still
> > > succeed because Provider2 is still announcing to the world that he
> > > has a path to me.  Is there some other way to do it?
> > >
> >
> > If you were to get physically diverse circuits from one provider that
> > landed on different routers at their POP (these may be big "if"s), you
> > would appear to have addressed the problem scenarios I've described.
> > [...]
>
> True, this addresses many points of failure and may be what I end up
doing,
> but it doesn't match *all* the resiliency available using BGP with
seperate
> providers.  If a provider has routing instability, using BGP I can just
stop
> my announcements to that provider and incoming traffic stabilizes.  If
they
> go bankrupt or lose their peering agreements with other tier1's I'm not
SOL.
>
> > While going to two different providers may get other-end router
> > diversity it may not get physical diversity out of your building or up
> > to the telco CO.  Do you have CPE-router diversity on your end to
> > prevent router problems from causing outages? [...]
>
> Yes, cpe and physical circuit paths are both redundant.
>
> > Just asking because there seems to be unreasonable FUD in this area.
>
> I get your point and don't disagree, and the comments are of course
> appreciated, but I was hoping there was something new - a feature of some
> routing protocol I didn't know about - that I'd slept through, that would
> match bgp-multihoming's redundancy without matching its requirement for
use
> of a /24.
>
> -t.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/