Re: [cobalt-users] Need advice on Colocating or Self Location (fwd)

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:27:42 -0700 (MST)
> From: Brent Sims <bs@xxxxxxxxxxx>


> 	I started on a wing, a prayer and and the first SDSL
> connection to go live in the City of Pueblo... today I have 10
> servers online and while only 1 is currently lit, there are 6 DS1s
> attached to the back of the building, standing by just in case...
> 
> 	If only I could get Eddy to tweek our router :-)

:-)

Ready, willing, and eager -- especially when there are multiple
circuits that need more intelligence than what BGP alone can
provide.  Well, that and I must clear out some existing projects
first. :-)  [Back to ignoring the lists until I catch up.]

Note that this is one good thing about hosting instead of
providing access:  Route maps tune inbound routes (outbound
traffic), but tuning in the other direction requires upstreams
that offer selective as-path padding via BGP communities.

C&W does.  L3 does, but no longer offers DS1s.  GlobalCrossing
does, IIRC, but I've not played on our connection to confirm.
Netrail did, but got borged by Cogent; who knows what will happen
now.

Sprint claimed to in pre-sales, but does not.  UUNet and Savvis
have stated that they won't, period.  Verio does not.  I don't
know about AT&T or BBN^H^H^HGenuity.

In short:  If you're small and need lots of flexibility on
inbound traffic, I hesitantly recommend C&W as a second upstream
when it comes time to multiphome.  (I say "hesitantly" due to
their propensity to depeer, as witnessed by the PSINet fiasco and
depeering of former Exodus peers... the latter of which I believe
is effective today.  Who's next?)

Disclaimer:  I have no interest in any of the backbone providers.


> 	The point is that, contrary to popular opinion, you can
> indeed do this.

Yes.  Although I agree with Jeff that our 3x DS1 has less
bragging rights than Nx OC3, careful route selection and _keeping
the latency down_ provides real-world performance.  Our customers
tend to be pragmatic and believe that the "proof is in the
pudding" -- and also like being able to interact with someone
clueful who actually runs the network.

When I finally finish my system upgrades, I'm going to have to
test slowstart TCP flight sizes > 1 to see how that affects
performance on different speed user connections.  (But that's
another little FreeBSD thing.)


> 	What I would suggest you do is obtain T1. They're dirt
> cheap now. A Sprint Rep offered me a full T1 for under $600.00 per
> month this very morning - without an install fee. If that's too
> steep, go for an xDSL circuit with a dialup backup. SDSL is perhaps
> your best choice but business class ADSL will do quite nicely. If

I think (hope!) you mean business-class SDSL... in most places,
ADSL is a joke.  Low outbound bandwidth, local loop where the
LEC doesn't give a flying you-know-what, and _lots_ of traffic
aggregation... ADSL is fine for bursty inbound traffic, but
stinks when it comes to sustained outbound loads.


> the local telco will let you nail it up 24x7, without any per minute
> charges, ISDN is worth looking into also. My experience with this
> outfit is not at all good, thus I can't recomend them, but if SISNA
> works your area they a perfect package - SDSL with a dialup backup.

We started out on ISDN back in 1997.  Unless your LEC is better
than SWBT, I'd not recommend doing this.  Also, ISDN is a bit
slow by modern standards.  Then again, a fast server over ISDN
_does_ seem faster than many overloaded sites that I've
visited...


> 	To make a long story short, xDSL circuits are often powered
> by local ISPs who can, for a price, provide you with a dial up
> backup to keep you online in the event your DSL goes down. While

If you can get a /24, you can use your choice of dial backup
provider.  Requires some routing work, and can get messy, but I
thought I'd mention that it's possible.


> this is messy, with two DSL circuits you run NAT internally and
> thereby run over either circuit - it works, I've done it here. The
> 
> Linux router project contains a how-to which explains how to set up
> on two connections without BGP - this too is a bit messy but it
> works also.

The problem with this is DNS.  One must rely on short TTLs or
wait until cached info expires... neither of which is very
attractive.  It works if both circuits are up -- which sort of
defeats the purpose.

In short, BGP is currently The One True Way for redundancy.  If
you have a /24 or shorter, though, you can probably do dial
backup.  I say probably because Verio^H^H^H^H^Hsome providers
have filtering policies that causes problems if your IP space is
in certain netblocks.

But I fear that I'm straying waaay OT.


> 	A very simple trick, that works quite well if you can afford
> it, is to slip your hosts between two or more servers, each of which
> is on a different connection. Thus if you loose one, the other will
> still be up. There's also some software available, for Windows, the
> name of which I don't recall, which turns a multi-homed Windows box
> into a router capable of utilizing multiple circuits of any type.
> Additionally, if you have the bucks, a hardware solution is offered
> by someone - search for fatpipe and you'll find it.

Again, I recommend BGP.  Will elaborate if anyone wishes.


> 	A great place to learn more is at Netopia.com
> 
> 	Be prepared for a rather steep learning curve. That does not
> mean you can't do this, it just means that you're going to find out
> just how little you and most "gurus" know when - if you actually
> start doing this. I'm intellectually challenged and most certainly

One argument in favor of going in-house:  After the initial
setup, most things chug along happily without regular service.
You can contract out the BGP setup and tuning, and then let
things run along their merry way.  If you wish to tinker, you
can; you have control that you just don't have at a colo.

Warning:  Although I believe that I speak objectively, I _do_
have a selfish interest in this.


> not a guru but, with the exception of friends and business
> associates who are in the business, the first time I spoke with
> anyone that knew more than me was when UUNet brought in our first
> DS1. Prior to that the installers would walk in here and practially
> mess their pants - I ended doing most all of the configurations for
> them.

Not to mention troubleshooting.  I could hardly believe how inept
your first upstream was.


--
Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence

--
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to be blocked.