Is there a technical reason that a debit system backend wouldn't be set up with some redundancies (ie not singlehomed to rogers) or is it just laziness/costcutting?
speculation, but hopefully grounded in truth. There are few networks in Canada, and many of the providers on these networks resell service on the network that's owned and operated by only a few (3? more? less?) companies
I meant redundancies as in 'if this network goes out, we have a backup network (on a different provider) we can switch to and continue processing transactions'. That said, I don't have the expertise to know how feasible something like that would be in this scenario
Word on the street is that they have a redundant network in place, but it is also supplied by Rogers. So more likely some technical incompetence combined with snake oil salesmanery.
"Oookay, who fat-fingered the EBGP peering table this time?"
Welp, everyone needs a DR/BCP plan for national and regional disasters of natural and human kinds that also involve cellular, network, fuel, and power outages at different areas.
For example, perhaps the they need multiple cell carriers with independent backbones run by different companies.
9 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 48.1 ms ] threadWelp, everyone needs a DR/BCP plan for national and regional disasters of natural and human kinds that also involve cellular, network, fuel, and power outages at different areas.
For example, perhaps the they need multiple cell carriers with independent backbones run by different companies.