[166201] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Pinsky)
Fri Oct 11 19:00:09 2013
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:22 -0700
From: Bruce Pinsky <bep@whack.org>
To: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <-3753201734474531624@unknownmsgid>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: bep@whack.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phil Bedard wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a small network in a part of the world
> where bandwidth is scarce and multiple DSL lines are often used for
> upstream links. The topic is policy-based routing, which is being
> described as "load balancing" where end-user traffic is assigned to a
> line according to source address.
>
> In my opinion the main problems with this are:
>
> - It's brittle, when a line fails, traffic doesn't re-route
> - None of the usual debugging tools work properly
> - Adding a new user is complicated because it has to be done in (at
> least) two places
>
> But I'm having a distinct lack of success locating rants and diatribes
> or even well-reasoned articles supporting this opinion.
>
> Am I out to lunch?
>
No, but what better solution do we have to offer them? There are dynamic
load distribution features and products (think Cisco PfR, for example), but
those are routinely lambasted as well.
- --
=========
bep
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlJYgsoACgkQE1XcgMgrtyaHOgCfaS58WFFKaXfY87FddXZu4SGb
b60AoPMY73ZtENIW4akBZbUMN0H9euY2
=XSi6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
