RE: Routing policy in ASN database?

  • To: "'map at iphil dot net'" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Subject: RE: Routing policy in ASN database?
  • From: Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:49:38 +0800
  • Cc: "'apops at apnic dot net'" <apops at apnic dot net>
  • Encoding: 66 TEXT
  • Sender: owner-apops@apnic.net
    • Hello Scott,
      
      The number of routes is one metric. The value assigned to the route is 
      another metric. Figuring out the balance is the fun part. This is where the 
      "art" comes in (as you know from in-depth first hand experience).
      
      One thing that was not asked: Miguel - are you collecting statistics? I 
      know you are doing a lot of traffic statistics on your proxy/cache 
      (*Miguel's got some nice scripts for Squid), but how about SNMP or NetFlow? 
      
      Barry
      
      > From:    Scott Huddle [SMTP:huddle at mci dot net]
      > To:      map at iphil dot net; bgreene at cisco dot com
      > Date:    97-04-04 23:37:32
      > Subject: RE: Routing policy in ASN database?
      >
      > > We're not looking for load balancing; redundancy is the main goal.
      > > Putting some of the load into the MCI circuit would be of secondary
      > > benefit.  This is why I was wondering how much routes would fill up
      > > the 256K MCI link.  Or, "how big is MCI?"
      >
      > Traffic is (roughly) correlated to the routing announcement "share",
      > you may want to do this math yourself with your routing table (I
      > see our more specifics), but from my POV, I see...
      >
      > Peer Detail
      >
      > AS     Name                  Routes         Share Total Routes   Total 
      Share
      > 3561   MCI                       13859         32.7%        13859 
              32.7%
      > 1239   SPRINTLINK                 8343         19.7%        22202 
              52.4%
      > 701    ALTERNET                   6667         15.7%        28869 
              68.1%
      > 1      BBN                        2895          6.8%        31764 
              75.0%
      > 1800   ICM                        1917          4.5%        33681 
              79.5%
      > 1673   ANS-NEWBACKBONE            1617          3.8%        35298 
              83.3%
      > 174    PSI                        1395          3.3%        36693 
              86.6%
      > 568    MILNET                      742          1.8%        37435 
              88.4%
      > 286    EUNET                       620          1.5%        38055 
              89.8%
      > ...
      >
      > In your first example you mentioned a T1/256K split, this seems
      > reasonable to me if you want to do load balancing, but for redundancy
      > wouldn't you want equal bandwidth?
      >
      > -scott
      >
      
      
      --
      --
      --
      Barry Raveendran Greene             |       ||        ||        |
      Senior Consultant                   |       ||        ||        |
      Consulting Engineering              |      ||||      ||||       |
      tel: +65 738-5535 ext 235           |  ..:||||||:..:||||||:..   |
      e-mail: bgreene at cisco dot com           |  c i s c o S y s t e m s  |
      
      _________________________________________________________________________
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------