nanog mailing list archives
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () alink net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:46:52 -0700
Sean M. Doran wrote:
Actually the distribution problem is pretty simple. In your forwarding table add a per-prefix cost. The cost is expressed in terms of tokens. The tokens are deducted from a token bucket. The number of tokens in the bucket (depth and refresh-rate) is arrived at by some engineering or sales process. This polices MEDs nicely.
Hm. Aggregation breaks that scheme nicely. Absense of aggregation breaks routing nicely. --vadim
Current thread:
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement, (continued)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Alec H. Peterson (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Owen DeLong (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Jason Zigmont (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Alec H. Peterson (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement steve (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Alec H. Peterson (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Robert Bowman (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Alec H. Peterson (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Vadim Antonov (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Patrick Greenwell (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Vadim Antonov (Aug 26)