|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: optimal web service (Re: BGP announcements and small providers )
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 - [email protected] This is how I sign all my messages. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|