[afnog] Connectivity to www.afrinic.net-BGP qtn

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday 08 July 2010 02:53:10 pm Walubengo J wrote:

> @ Randy,
> my head has been going round in circles and forgive my
>  ignorance but am not sure I understand your statements
>  above.
> 
> i thought BGP by design presumes certain levels of
>  high-availability (i.e. multiple redundant paths to
>  facilitate AS_NO connectivity).

I'll let Randy-san handle that :-)...

>  Why cant the Border
>  Routers on TEAMs and SEACOM gateways be configured to
>  interconnect and automatically act as backup to each
>  other - without compromising BGP convergence?

First thing to know is that neither SEACOM nor TEAMS run an 
IP network. They run an optical transmission network, 
normally consisting of DWDM in the core and SDH in the 
access.

When your ISP connects to SEACOM/TEAMS, they do so at SDH 
levels, e.g., STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM-64 or STM-256. On 
the other end of such a connection would be the same or a 
different ISP. Think of SEACOM/TEAMS as a leased line 
provider, not an IP provider.

That said, Layer 1 providers (SEACOM, TEAMS, e.t.c.) have 
been known to co-operate, either to extend their presence in 
locations where they have no infrastructure, or to offer a 
protected service to their customers. In such a case, the 
interconnect between, say, SEACOM and TEAMS, would be at 
Layer 1, i.e., either DWDM, SDH or both. Such a connection 
does not natively support or require the use of IP 
(routers). This is purely Layer 1 circuit switching.

Effectively, SEACOM and TEAMS have no visibility (and 
typically don't care to) into the payload. You could be 
transporting voice, IP, IPX, X.25, DLSw, E-1's, e.t.c., it 
really doesn't matter to them.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20100708/91807a06/attachment.pgp>