nanog mailing list archives
Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss.
From: John Osmon <josmon () rigozsaurus com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 23:55:54 -0600
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:48:03AM -0700, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
On 10/11/2013 10:27 AM, William Waites 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.I wouldn't say "evil", I have found it really useful in some cases. You just need a different approach to the network design.
Yeah. Just do it in private and wash your hands afterwards. (Sorry, but a Lazarus Long quote seemed appropriate.)
Current thread:
- Re: Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss., (continued)
- 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)