From: router guy (cert_pri00@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 23:17:30 GMT-3
YES..it is right, and i agree
>From: James <james@towardex.com>
>Reply-To: James <james@towardex.com>
>To: "Joseph D. Phillips" <josephdphillips@fastmail.us>
>CC: Joseph Rothstein <ziutek@mac.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: BGP reachablilty continued....
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:09:10 -0400
>
>On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 04:56:30PM -0700, Joseph D. Phillips wrote:
> > I was wondering what current ISP practice is regarding hot-potato vs.
> > cold-potato routing.
>
>Depends on the problem an ISP is specifically looking to solve.
>
>However, industry experiences and realities have shown that cold potato
>in general causes more engineering nightmare than default hot potato.
>
>Backbones who usually cold-potato their outbound traffic (egress) stand
>ample amount of money increasing their transport capacity to remote
>peering sites and POP's. Whereas, backbones who hot-potato their egress
>traffic spend less amount of money on transports, but spend more money
>increasing diversity in peering capacity as well as any transit relations
>they have (e.g. settlement-free transit is one of the new ones lately,
>or paid transit if the carrier is mix of tier2).
>
>In my personal opinion, I find cold potato for egress traffic pretty
>useless. I want my traffic to leave the network as soon as geographically
>possible in route engineering. Networks today face situations where
>often times, transit bandwidth costs are getting low as dirt sand where
>transport prices aren't keeping up w/ the pace at the same market speed.
>
>If it were you, would you rather spend more money having diverse
connections
>with other ASN's, than increasing capacity of your own network transports?
>Granted, you must ensure you do proper capacity planning of your
transports,
>but I prefer diversity more when it comes to traffic engineering.
>
> >
> > According to one article I read, ISPs sort of go right down the middle
> > -- not trying to get rid of traffic right away and not trying to do too
> > much QoS on it, either.
>
>Although not defined anywhere by the industry often, some people and
myself
>like to call this "meshed-potato" where it is between hot and cold --
>
>We use hot potato to egress the traffic as fast as geographically possible
>to our transit carriers. At the same time, we use cold potato to ensure
that
>return traffic, arriving back to our network, remains on our transit
provider's
>backbone as long as possible, instead of having them offload it to our
network
>in hot potato style.
>
>So while we send our outbound traffic as fast as we can off our network to
>our transit upstreams, since we are paying transit carriers to move bits
anyway,
>and they gaurantee their network performance with SLA, we makes sense for
us
>to use their network as long as possible for traffic coming back to a
particular
>point in our network.
>
>Then again, if this is against a peering partner, instead of transit
carrier,
>then meshed-potato is something you should *never* do until you ask your
partner
>first... or you may end up facing consequences up to and including
unexpected
>de-peering :)
>
>-J
>
>
>--
>James Jun TowardEX
Technologies, Inc.
>Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT
Outsourcing
>james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth
Services
>cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc:
www.twdx.net
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:44 GMT-3