5 ms·

That still doesn't make sense though. In the context of a WAN, a backbone is an external network. It routes between your POPs. At any rate, the margin of error

That still doesn't make sense though. In the context of a WAN, a backbone is an external network. It routes between your POPs. At any rate, the margin of error and complexity in having two separate backbones networks managed by two separate teams would likely result in more network issues not less. The whole point in having an AS is having a coherent routing policy.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
The parent never said multiple networks was easier to implement. In fact it could easily 2x the cost for the same level of quality, which is why it's almost unheard of for cloud.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  The parent was stating that two networks would be better but its none done because of costs. And that's complete nonsense. The fact that it's more difficult and complex to have two separate teams manage two separate networks means it's more prone to error and misconfiguration. The reason it's not done has nothing do with financial costs but rather because it makes no sense, for the very fact I just mentioned.
  - admax88qqq 4y ago
    Two end to end networks would be more reliable. Like two independent internets spanning from your server to my laptop. Two completely isolated end to end transports. That's what OP meant when they said you could make it more reliable by having a redundant network. It's just prohibitively expensive. Then if one internet goes down in any way I talk to you over the other. That's a fairly straightforward fallback algorithm to implement.
    - allarm 4y ago
      Actually I have seen a setup that was quite close to this. Two separate networks, one of them was completely isolated from another, didn’t have Internet access and used a separate set of network equipment. On top of that, the building itself had two entrances - one for the boss and another one for the personnel. You physically couldn’t get from one part of the building to another. It didn’t help the boss though - he was blown up in his car one day. Fun times.
wmf 4y ago
You're talking like multihoming doesn't work. Sure there are cases where bugs or bad configs can propagate across ASes but most of the time you can survive if one provider goes down.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  And that's exactly where the whole "have two backbones managed by separate teams instead of one" stops. If someone pushes out an incorrect network config to the end box then all that "let's have two of everything" becomes completely worthless. And as far as multihoming everything and having every single box on the network act as router, unless you are running a CDN of some sort, really makes zero sense. You seem to be arguing that adding more complexity will automatically result in better reliability.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

The parent never said multiple networks was easier to implement. In fact it could easily 2x the cost for the same level of quality, which is why it's almost unheard of for cloud.

bogomipz 4y ago
The parent was stating that two networks would be better but its none done because of costs. And that's complete nonsense. The fact that it's more difficult and complex to have two separate teams manage two separate networks means it's more prone to error and misconfiguration. The reason it's not done has nothing do with financial costs but rather because it makes no sense, for the very fact I just mentioned.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Two end to end networks would be more reliable. Like two independent internets spanning from your server to my laptop. Two completely isolated end to end transports. That's what OP meant when they said you could make it more reliable by having a redundant network. It's just prohibitively expensive. Then if one internet goes down in any way I talk to you over the other. That's a fairly straightforward fallback algorithm to implement.
  - allarm 4y ago
    Actually I have seen a setup that was quite close to this. Two separate networks, one of them was completely isolated from another, didn’t have Internet access and used a separate set of network equipment. On top of that, the building itself had two entrances - one for the boss and another one for the personnel. You physically couldn’t get from one part of the building to another. It didn’t help the boss though - he was blown up in his car one day. Fun times.

wmf 4y ago

You're talking like multihoming doesn't work. Sure there are cases where bugs or bad configs can propagate across ASes but most of the time you can survive if one provider goes down.

bogomipz 4y ago
And that's exactly where the whole "have two backbones managed by separate teams instead of one" stops. If someone pushes out an incorrect network config to the end box then all that "let's have two of everything" becomes completely worthless. And as far as multihoming everything and having every single box on the network act as router, unless you are running a CDN of some sort, really makes zero sense. You seem to be arguing that adding more complexity will automatically result in better reliability.