optimal web service (Re: BGP announcements and small providers )

Matt Ranney mjr at ranney.com
Wed Feb 26 21:32:16 UTC 1997

On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> My approach avoids the use of BGP, but not for the above stated reasons.  As
> I said at the SF NANOG, it is hard to get transit providers to send a full
> BGP table, it is hard to accept it, and it would take a modified GateD that
> randomized destinations in order to keep BGP's path selection from leading
> 90% of your routes down 1/Nth of your transit providers.  BGP was the wrong
> answer.

Were the majority of your paths going down one single provider because
of a silly tie-breaker like the numeric value of the IP address of the
peer, or was it because that provider had a shorter AS path?  If its
the latter, where's the problem?  If one provider has a better path
and you aren't out of bandwidth on the connection to that provider,
why would you want to take a different path?
Matt Ranney - mjr at ranney.com

This is how I sign all my messages.

More information about the NANOG mailing list