[104059] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Wed Apr 23 11:40:18 2008
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:39:56 +0100
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Pasko <doug.pasko@verizon.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow <
christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer
> address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a
> network sense. Something like:
>
> 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a
> public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org)
> 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ?
>
> This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my
> transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful
> expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network...
Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP addressing
structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This is
why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model.
Alex
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
