🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.222754.27625@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>,
 bobm@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Robert Marks) writes:

>...
> 
> To open a slightly different thread, even with double the bandwidth (in
> August) Australia's single link to the outside world is just that -- a single
> link -- which raises issues of reliability and robustness for me.  Is there
> any reason why instead of a single 1 Meg link we can't have two 512k links,
> so that if one has technical trouble, the whole thing doesn't fall over?

This discussion has come up many times.  With the Internet engineered as it
is currently, there are extreme technical difficulties in providing multiple
points of connection for an Australian (or any other) network.  So this goes
back to providing redundent paths from A to B.  Assuming load balancing was
enabled to make the most of the links while all are available, multiple
links will still be much more expensive than a single link with a bandwidth
equal to the sum of multiple links and finally the real crux: on past
experience, any event that knocks out one link will more than likely knock
out all links and what does redundency get you then - SFA!  The modems and
routers at each end of the link are not the problem points.  Believe that
this discussion has been considered by people who really know what goes on
(a whole lot more than me :-).

With future engineering changes to the Internet, such developments may be
possible, but *only* if they are done in conjunction with Telecoms at both
ends of the link to ensure that you are getting *real* redundency and not
just *apparent* redundency.

Chris Chaundy (Technical Manager, Networks)

Information Technology Services, Thomas Cherry Building,
The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052 Australia
Phone:    +61 3 344 7045                Fax:   +61 3 347 4803
Internet: C.Chaundy@its.unimelb.EDU.AU 	(X.121 505233430003)