nanog mailing list archives
RE: multihoming without BGP
From: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe () genuity net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:49:43 -0700
-----Original Message----- From: Paul A Vixie [SMTP:paul () vix com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 11:35 AM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: multihoming without BGP <snip> The way I think of this is that BGP describes reachability, and clients need to know about topology in order to select the right web server, and these two (reachability and topology) are necessarily unrelated to each other. I think that there is another important element or metric that is not served by either - packet loss across the path. You know a server is reachable - BGP tells you. If you know the topology, you know it is "close". But looking at a typical day at MAE East, for example, when you take into account the packets that end up being dropped, it may *not* be the 'best' path. Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net
Current thread:
- Re: multihoming without BGP Paul A Vixie (Jun 10)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Robert E. Seastrom (Jun 11)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Randy Bush (Jun 11)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Paul A Vixie (Jun 11)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Dana Hudes (Jun 13)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Marc Slemko (Jun 13)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Paul A Vixie (Jun 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: multihoming without BGP Rodney Joffe (Jun 11)
- Re: multihoming without BGP Vadim Antonov (Jun 11)