nanog mailing list archives
[no subject]
From: Steve Dodd via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:24:17 +0000 (UTC)
--- Begin Message --- From: Steve Dodd <steve.dodd () sungardas com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 09:02:16 -0600
On 5/6/15, 4:56 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy () psg com> wrote:a fellow researcher wants > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not* > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links > (that's true right?). Could you give some examples? Perhaps point > me to relevant references? if so, why? security? congestion? other? but is it common? and, if so, how do you do it? randyIn the wireless backhaul space I¹ve seen carriers that would prefer a circuit to go down rather than take the long path on a ring between tower and switching center. I assume they are concerned with some sort of latency requirement. We used RSVP-TE with link coloring as the solution. -Steve
--- End Message ---
Current thread:
- link avoidance Randy Bush (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance William Herrin (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance Matthew Kaufman (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance Jimmy Hess (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance Owen DeLong (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance Christopher Morrow (May 06)
- Re: link avoidance Scott Whyte (May 06)
- [no subject] Steve Dodd via NANOG (May 07)