nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP metrics on WAN links
From: Warren Van Camp <vancamp () sonic net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:39:57 -0700
At 01:24 PM 7/19/02 -0700, Joe Abley wrote:
Yeah, my (limited) experience is the opposite. At the previous large operator at which I had enable, the IGP metrics were chosen primarily according to circuit size, and were subsequently tweaked for other issues (such as circuit latency, or the requirement to balance cross- US traffic across non-parallel circuits).
I would expect that approach wouldn't scale as well as the network grows in complexity, since it will be much more sensitive to unexpected traffic flow changes due to addition of new circuits or routers. Definitely, congestion is an issue. If you've got backbone congestion, you better be tweaking your traffic as best you can in any case. But the network should behave in an intuitive manner with minimum latency (shortest distance) as much as possible. Warren Van Camp.
Current thread:
- IGP metrics on WAN links Tom Holbrook (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Sush Bhattarai (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Me (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Joe Abley (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Me (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Joe Abley (Jul 19)
- RE: IGP metrics on WAN links Daniel Golding (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Warren Van Camp (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Sush Bhattarai (Jul 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Warren Van Camp (Jul 19)
- RE: IGP metrics on WAN links Frank Scalzo (Jul 19)
- Re: IGP metrics on WAN links Jennifer Rexford (Jul 24)