From: Craig Columbus (Craig.Columbus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 14:40:09 GMT-3
Good points Howard. Perhaps I was generalizing a bit too much.
To clarify, when I was speaking of nodes, I didn't mean front facing
network device nodes specifically. I was thinking more generically in
terms of "anything that attaches to the network at any point". An
enterprise with 100000 nodes is likely, though not guaranteed, to be highly
complex. An enterprise with 10 forward facing nodes that require highly
complex connectivity, like in your example of Amazon firewalls, is also
likely to have many nodes on the backside of the front facing devices. A
typical small business that has only 100 total nodes may, but is unlikely
to have, complex connectivity requirements.
There are definitely exceptions to any situation. I have one brokerage
client that has only about 100 internal hosts, but does so much business
over the Internet that the complexity of multiple Internet connections with
separate providers / local loops is justified.
Craig
At 11:53 AM 3/8/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:00 AM -0500 3/8/02, Craig Columbus wrote:
>>I'm sure you'll get better answers than mine, but I think it boils down
>>to your customer base.
>>If you're dealing with small customers that only have a few hundred
>>nodes, BGP probably isn't necessary.
>>If your customer has 100000 nodes, a worldwide WAN, and the need for
>>multiple redundant Net connections that don't tie them to an ISP, you'll
>>want a portable IP space and peer this space with the providers using BGP.
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Craig
>
>It's less a matter of number of nodes than your connectivity policy. A
>"small customer" might have 10 hosts, right? But what if those 10 hosts
>are Amazon's firewalls? They obviously need complex connectivity to
>multiple providers, and probably to multiple POPs of the providers.
>
>The key question to ask (see http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1930.txt) is:
>does the enterprise have an Internet connectivity that differs from its
>provider(s)?
>
>This discussion hasn't touched on the internal applications of BGP within
>enterprises. I've used it many times to create a "backbone of backbones,"
>doing such things as forcing certain exit points, controlled Internet
>access, and mutual backup arrangements. I've also built intercontinental
>backbones of backbones with floating static routes, when the particular
>enterprise topology was highly hierarchical.
>
>These are obviously very simplified explanations. My "WAN Survival Book"
>from Wiley goes into enterprise WAN (including Internet) connectivity at
>book length. You can also navigate to the last NANOG Atlanta meeting and
>see my presentation on "customer satisfaction," which gets into some
>analysis of my customer requirements. I'll have all my presentations and
>non-publisher-copyrighted papers online at gettlabs.com in the next couple
>of weeks.
>
>>
>>At 03:25 PM 3/8/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>>>Question.
>>>
>>>Why would a company want BGP?
>>>
>>>In what scenarios would it be good working policy to actually sell them
>>>BGP instead of advertising their netblock through redistribution means
>>>and giving them a default route.
>>>I have struggled with this question for a while and I can't really come
>>>up with any hard evidence to the benefits of BGP for a customer.
>>>
>>>I mean what does BGP give a customer?
>>>
>>>Any thoughts welcome
>>>
>>>Robert McCallum CCIE #8757
>>>Data Network Engineer
>>>Ext 730 3448
>>>DDI : 01415663448
>>>Mobile : 07818002241
>>>
>>>"You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and
>>>still come out completely dry. Most people do."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:57 GMT-3