[166186] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Fri Oct 11 14:34:57 2013
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:33:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <EF0576F1-FAB9-4634-AE64-8AC3FDCC2DD4@bogus.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com>
> you take all the useful information that an IGP could be (or is)
> providing you, and then you ignore it and do something else.
Well, I tell you what.
My perception of where this was a good idea is the use case a recent
client might have for it:
Two consumer-grade uplinks (FiOS 150 and RR 100, specifically); primary
application is callcenter, VoIP to a service provider Elsewhere.
I would set it up so that all the VoIP and callcenter web traffic went over
FiOS *until it failed*, and everything else went Road Runner *unless it
failed*.
This keeps the general traffic out of the hair of the latency/PPS sensitive
traffic whenever possible.
Is that not policy-based routing?
Why is it bad?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
