[7850] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: optimal web service (Re: BGP announcements and small providers )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Ranney)
Wed Feb 26 16:42:07 1997
From: "Matt Ranney" <mjr@ranney.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:32:16 -0800 (PST)
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199702262008.MAA09873@wisdom.home.vix.com>
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:
[...]
> My approach avoids the use of BGP, but not for the above stated reasons. As
> I said at the SF NANOG, it is hard to get transit providers to send a full
> BGP table, it is hard to accept it, and it would take a modified GateD that
> randomized destinations in order to keep BGP's path selection from leading
> 90% of your routes down 1/Nth of your transit providers. BGP was the wrong
> answer.
Were the majority of your paths going down one single provider because
of a silly tie-breaker like the numeric value of the IP address of the
peer, or was it because that provider had a shorter AS path? If its
the latter, where's the problem? If one provider has a better path
and you aren't out of bandwidth on the connection to that provider,
why would you want to take a different path?
--
Matt Ranney - mjr@ranney.com
This is how I sign all my messages.
