Can you recommend which Cisco router should I be looking at? It sounds=
like I'd need the following interfaces: BRI-U (for ISDN), 2 10-B-T (from=
the neighbor and for my local net), and preferably a serial interface so I=
could get my own T1 when the time comes. I guess I could also use an=
external NT1 into a serial interface too.
Also (ignorance exposed), what do you mean by "customer routes from PSI",=
does that refer to them setting up their routers to route to a "customer=
owned" address block (really a Verio block in my case)?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/10/98, at 1:12 AM, Phillip Heller wrote:
>I would look into attaching that 128k ISDN line to the Cisco box and run
>BGP4. Of course 128k ISDN hardly offsets the speed of the T1, but if you
>took customer routes from PSI, you might improve efficiency a bit, and
>redundancy _quite_ a bit. Of course you'll need to get PSI and your new
>found friend to do BGP sessions with you.
>
>Good luck either way!
>
>Regards,
> Phil
> pheller@csonline.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Stevenson <stuart@tracent.com>
>To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>
>Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:20 PM
>Subject: Multiple upstreams
>
>
>We're currently doing a little web hosting via a 128k ISDN and an Ascend
>Pipe 50. We have a class C from PSI and have been humming along just=
fine.
>Now we're starting to feel the pressure to add bandwidth and have struck a
>deal with a neighbor to pull in a 10-Base-T cable from his 2 T1s.
>
>The plan is to use a Cisco router between our suite and theirs. We can=
get
>another Class C from these guys, but we would also like to keep the PSI
>connection as a backup.
>
>We've got a few questions on how to do all this:
>
>1) Is it possible (and reasonable) to have both connections active at the
>same time?
>
>2) If so, can we do it and keep the PSI address block with routing via the
>new upstream (which is connected to Verio) or get PSI route to our Verio
>block?
>
>3) If not, is it reasonable to setup two subnets (1 PSI block and 1 Verio
>block) with each virtual server assigned an address in each subnet? I am
>thinking if we do it this way, I could have our primary DNS on the Verio
>subnet, pointing to Verio addresses, with our "secondary" setup as a=
primary
>on the PSI subnet, with all it's A records pointing to the PSI block. I
>know it's twice the work, but (to me anyway) it makes sense and would
>provide complete connection redundancy.
>
>Any thoughts from some seasoned pros?
>
>Stuart Stevenson
>stuart@tracent.net
>Tracent Technologies, Inc.
>www.tracent.net