Re: your mail

[Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>]

At 03:52 PM 7/18/01, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
>Hi,
>
> >
> > I know how fair queueing works.  What I'm saying is that if I'm
> > multihoming via tunnels like this, fair queuing is not what I'm paying
> > for...I'm paying for QoS beyond that.
>
>First of all, the site uses normal links if there are no problems. It only
>switches to tunnels when there is are failures. I don't think it is fair
>to say we are "multihoming via tunnels" in all contexts.

So let's make sure everyone is clear on this point. You're saying the only 
reason to multi-home is for failover purposes. As long as the "primary" 
link is up, the "secondary" interface (which is used solely to carry 
tunneled traffic in the event of an outage with the primary) is never used.

Sites multi-home for reasons other than line outage recovery, but you don't 
take those into account. It is common for sites to select a second upstream 
provider for multihoming based on a business need for reliable 
communications to a specific destination (business partner, for example). 
I'm not convinced a multi-homing solution based solely on the notion of 
disaster recovery is sufficient.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com