Policy-based routing is evil? Discuss.

Fri Oct 11 18:41:20 UTC 2013

I think they are referring to something like Cisco PBR, where you
configure routing policy statically on each hop.  Yes, it can be
configured to fail over, etc, but inherently it is a management nightmare
if you are configuring PBR on each device in your network.  May as well
move back to static routing on everythingŠ

Used sparingly, I'd agree that it does have its uses.  One use I can think
of is to use PBR to direct traffic for testing a new circuit or path while
not cutting everything over.  That is, until it is sufficiently tested,
and then everything would be cut over and the PBR removedŠ

On 10/11/13 2:33 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "joel jaeggli" <joelja at bogus.com>
>> you take all the useful information that an IGP could be (or is)
>> providing you, and then you ignore it and do something else.
>
>Well, I tell you what.
>
>My perception of where this was a good idea is the use case a recent
>client might have for it:
>
>Two consumer-grade uplinks (FiOS 150 and RR 100, specifically); primary
>application is callcenter, VoIP to a service provider Elsewhere.
>
>I would set it up so that all the VoIP and callcenter web traffic went
>over
>FiOS *until it failed*, and everything else went Road Runner *unless it
>failed*. 
>
>This keeps the general traffic out of the hair of the latency/PPS
>sensitive
>traffic whenever possible.
>
>Is that not policy-based routing?
>
>Why is it bad?
>
>Cheers,
>-- jra
>-- 
>Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink
>jra at baylink.com
>Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC
>2100
>Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land
>Rover DII
>St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647
>1274
>