Some locations are just too cost prohibitive to multihome, but that really is a select few. Few places are out of the reach of a couple wireless hops back to civilization.
--Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wil Schultz Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property) Almost ALL? Any company, or any person for that matter, that relies on their Internet connectivity for their lively hood should be multihomed. -wil On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Almost ALL providers should be multihomed. > > --Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > virendra rode // > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:26 AM > To: NANOG > Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Frank Bulk wrote: >> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151 >> >> Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive >> providers? >> >> Frank > - ------------------------ > Just curious, should "small responsive providers" should be multi- > homed? > > > > regards, > /virendra > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFF+XOApbZvCIJx1bcRAtkwAJ9vNak3F8FlCf9VDycf6IlAr445nACg59kB > w2OWAGdchd2XQyxxgZWQaug= > =Yb1+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
