North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
On 4/14/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > you'll never get better redundancy than having more than one carrier. One carrier can often tell if two circuits they're providing you are on the same route, and can develop processes for building circuits that are not only installed diversely, but don't get rerouted onto the same path. Doesn't mean that *every* carrier can do this , or that the ones who can always do it reliably, but it's a start. Two carriers can almost never tell if that's the case, even if neither of them is buying services from the other or from a common third carrier. Nor are they good at developing processes together. They are less likely to have common equipment failures, or common operator failures, but they're more likely to have common backhoe targets. Also, while it may be possible to get diversity by deploying two circuits at the same time, that doesn't mean that you can get diversity by deploying one circuit and later deploying another. A common problem is that routes ABCDEFGZ and AHIJKLMZ are diverse, but the first circuit you buy is on route ABCKLMZ and there's no way to build diversity with the leftovers. Another common problem is that routes ABCDEFGZ and AHIJKLMZ are both more expensive than ABCKLMZ, and AHINOPQRSTUVWXYZ is much more expensive, and you've awarded the initial purchase to the lowest bidder and expect others to be competitive. ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.