[Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]

Christopher Morrow christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Wed Apr 23 13:17:25 CDT 2008


On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell
<a.harrowell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer
> > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a
> > network sense. Something like:
> >
> > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a
> > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org)
> > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ?
> >
> > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my
> > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful
> > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network...
>
> Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP addressing
> structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This is
> why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model.
>

sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s).
perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more
realtime info about locality.




More information about the NANOG mailing list