nanog mailing list archives
Re: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate
From: "Bill Stewart" <nonobvious () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:55:12 -0800
There's the somewhat trivial efficiency that if you're willing to accept asymmetric routing, you spend a lot less time tweaking your networks than if you insist on symmetry, and the more significant issue that the network will usually be more resilient and reliable (though slightly less predictable) if you're not tweaking it. Essentially, if you don't control all the parts of the network that your packet uses, you're not able to directly set optimization parameters, so what you're doing to get symmetry is throwing lots of hints at the network and hoping some will stick, and the parts of the network that happen to cooperate with you may not be the best ones that are otherwise available.
Current thread:
- Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Drew Weaver (Jan 14)
- RE: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Darden, Patrick S. (Jan 14)
- Re: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate William Herrin (Jan 14)
- RE: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Scott Morris (Jan 14)
- Re: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Bill Stewart (Jan 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Paul Ferguson (Jan 14)
- Re: Asymmetrical routing opinions/debate Adrian Chadd (Jan 14)