nanog mailing list archives
Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss.
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:27:58 -0500
On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:27 PM, William Waites <wwaites () tardis ed ac uk> wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a small network in a part of the world where bandwidth is scarce and multiple DSL lines are often used for upstream links. The topic is policy-based routing, which is being described as "load balancing" where end-user traffic is assigned to a line according to source address.
Doing this with actual routing, in a way that doesn't become fragile is hard. It is not impossible as Jared points out, but is non-trivial. However there is a variant which is much less brittle, but is more annoying to configure with most tools. The idea is that the gateway box is a NAT, with an outbound IP on each of the two uplinks. The box can then make intelligent decisions about which provider to use based on layer 8+9 information. I've seen this done multiple times where for instance there is high bandwidth satellite, and low bandwidth terrestrial services. Latency sensitive traffic (dns, ssh, etc) are send over the low bandwidth terrestrial, while bulk downloads go over satellite. It's quite robust and useful in these situations. Making open source boxes do this is possible, but quite annoying in my experience. I don't think it's possible to make a Cisco or Juniper do this sort of thing in any reasonable way. A number of manufacturers have developed custom solutions around this idea. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Current thread:
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss., (continued)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Dobbins, Roland (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. joel jaeggli (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Michael Hallgren (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. William Waites (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Fred Reimer (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Christopher Morrow (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Stuart Sheldon (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Jay Ashworth (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Fred Reimer (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. John Kristoff (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Leo Bicknell (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Jimmy Hess (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Octavio Alvarez (Oct 12)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Jimmy Hess (Oct 12)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. John Osmon (Oct 12)
- RE: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Phil Bedard (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Bruce Pinsky (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Jeff Kell (Oct 11)
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss. Bruce Pinsky (Oct 11)