[104061] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Apr 23 14:18:01 2008
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:25 -0400
From: "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2b2d0480804230839t729de0e2m9e93df5b1e246b71@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 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell
<a.harrowell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s).
perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more
realtime info about locality.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
