[179799] in North American Network Operators' Group
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Dodd via NANOG)
Thu May 7 17:24:18 2015
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2lhh18gdi.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Steve Dodd via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Steve Dodd <steve.dodd@sungardas.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:24:17 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <steve.dodd@sungardas.com>
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Delivered-To: nanog@nanog.org
Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys009aob139.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.251])
by mail.nanog.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC0C2C0156
for <nanog@nanog.org>; Thu, 7 May 2015 15:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob139.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP
ID DSNKVUt+gee06FyVQE8pkoaJQdQnJCOFfdcv@postini.com; Thu, 07 May 2015 08:02:28 PDT
Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so29131884qkx.0
for <nanog@nanog.org>; Thu, 07 May 2015 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id
:thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=baMLqT02T8xWfRETjPW8mOgO0msWADBAOu9jh+2IjWA=;
b=Hi01E2AZoeThYiIbLNzOSI1iqF0U7c4kuT303QUUNtMa/p5SbztM0lnDYwOxBqho9v
GBaH+KgoLkVTJHrOgnuwJ03hvadn6xgZf6txIMxA8mAKCSyOjFVYC8JW/cH3cgpF6Uhp
hI2rDdcO/ifUtGkvvm/DNEZ63C7gJMzGpjH5LEB38YV7QOPQOc/iBla9OMyzxBCg5x+D
auX2s+20KmYf3HecvGQvT2vlJod0IpoHQb3ztrGPgarbEN0ecj3wTkAuzBTYb56l+WM3
D+yyFfFWvccRQNaEjKvX6nYD2G2CDWLEtbW0xmI5SD2xTLgpjRspK9jCvwIyVxAlWf1P
N9jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQly6pxmJP6LQ89cv96HmnDqMxwJTRlUxfeem9eWGdXilTlaccPGsnGAkW3cBO8qYnCEBCATC0G8h25ggrubJuo/zWY6FY8ik/lOEDMyR7Ft2wjBAYSk5/oeSlbzRPMmNj+T6F3gEosP6ts4NMU/KQ4ur37l2g==
X-Received: by 10.55.19.160 with SMTP id 32mr9426242qkt.24.1431010944346;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.55.19.160 with SMTP id 32mr9426205qkt.24.1431010944209;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.40] ([76.8.205.139])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f131sm1533494qhc.47.2015.05.07.08.02.21
(version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 09:02:16 -0600
Subject: Re: link avoidance
From: Steve Dodd <steve.dodd@sungardas.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <D170D9B0.AA4C%steve.dodd@sungardas.com>
Thread-Topic: link avoidance
References: <m2lhh18gdi.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2lhh18gdi.wl%randy@psg.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:24:16 +0000
On 5/6/15, 4:56 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>a fellow researcher wants
>
> > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> > (that's true right?). Could you give some examples? Perhaps point
> > me to relevant references?
>
>if so, why? security? congestion? other? but is it common? and, if
>so, how do you do it?
>
>randy
In the wireless backhaul space I=B9ve seen carriers that would prefer a
circuit to go down rather than take the long path on a ring between tower
and switching center. I assume they are concerned with some sort of
latency requirement. We used RSVP-TE with link coloring as the solution.
-Steve
>
