[127791] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OER/PfR with BGP for inbound load sharing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Wed Jul 14 11:10:33 2010
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:10:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <017265BF3B9640499754DD48777C3D206909F0B950@MBX9.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Dylan Ebner wrote:
> I should look for other options to balance my inbound traffic.=20
Beyond the binary choice to advertise or not to advertise a given prefix vi=
a a given peer/upstream and/or any TE policies your peers/upstreams may sup=
port via community/attribute tagging, you've really no control over inbound=
traffic path selection. You can prepend, but whether other networks honor=
it or ignore it - or if they do honor it, *how* they honor it - is entirel=
y beyond your control.
So, vendor marketing claims aside, the concept of 'load-balancing' inbound =
traffic isn't really a valid one.
The only actual path-selection control you have is over your outbound traff=
ic, and that only for a single hop beyond your network, into each of your p=
eers/upstreams. What happens after that is beyond your control, as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
-- H.L. Mencken
