[179175] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: From Europe to Australia via right way
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Apr 2 10:03:25 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:03:17 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net>
To: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>, Piotr <piotr.1234@interia.pl>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20150402084325.GE77104@nbmacvieebi.local>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> piotr.1234@interia.pl (Piotr) wrote:
>
> > What's the reason, there are some telecoms,isp that have paths eastbound,
> > southbound but in routing table they prefer longer path via US ?
>
> Come on - you do know that it's called "policy" routing for a reason?
> Costs, reserved bw/s for high-rollers, capacity...
Sure, you can use static routes as well[1].
For those that are interested you can take a look
at http://www.submarinecablemap.com/ to get an idea of what path
might be feasible. I will say that telecom costs tend to be
related to political stability, so when computing shortest
path cost often comes into play.
Also, What I'm often reminding people is low-latency isn't
always the right solution, because loss is more important. I am
less concerned about another 25-100ms if there is little jitter
and zero loss.
- Jared
[1] - https://twitter.com/jaredmauch/status/583227901555961856
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
