From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Thu Jul 15 2004 - 17:29:01 GMT-3
At 3:09 PM -0400 7/15/04, James wrote:
>
>
>Yep. Speaking of hot potato, then there comes the cold potato with
>MED (and may be few other attributes, depending on how ISP wants)
>tweaks on routes. Unfortunately, for egress traffic leaving your
>network, cold potato through the industry has proven not a lot useful
>than overemphasized routing and more complexity. While cold potato
>on ingress traffic, if you are a transit customer of your adjacent
>AS, is a good idea, I'd rather spend more money on upgrading peering
>and transit capacity than on my own transports instead -- which is
>means hot potato'ing the egress traffic.
>
>There really is no meaning in optimal routing I agree. Whether you
>use hot potato or cold potato, the difference is minimal in most
>cases. In fact, given that majority of the internet structure is
>based upon "best effort delivery" belief, I would rather let my
>peer decide how it wants to deliver that traffic to its own customer
>edge as early as possible, than playing metrics over my transport
>circuits.
>
The hard truth that most enterprises don't want to hear from their
ISPs is that if they want QoS, they need to contract for a VPN with
an SLA. One of the great wrong assumptions about the Internet is
that ISPs that customers don't pay for transit have no special
incentive to be responsive to customer tweaks, be they MED or AS path
prepending.
If they are concerned with rough load sharing with multiple ISPs,
primarily for failover, tweaking won't buy them much. Again, if
there are high-volume connections, consider VPNs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:56 GMT-3