Re: Routing policy in ASN database?

  • To: huddle at mci dot net (Scott Huddle)
  • Subject: Re: Routing policy in ASN database?
  • From: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:05:38 +0800 (HKT)
  • Cc: apops at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <> from "Scott Huddle" at Apr 4, 97 10:34:44 am
  • Sender:
    • Hi,
      Scott Huddle wrote:
      > 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...
      I don't get fed any routing tables at the moment, you (MCI) are taking
      care of our route (  We'll only start on BGP
      when the new T1 comes in.  In fact, almost everyone here is doing
      static routing to the upstream.
      > 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?
      If we could afford it, why not.  :)  It is a long way though from our
      Sprintlink 64K which we got in June 1995.  We hope to get (that is,
      afford!) another T1 within the year, and that will most likely be a MCI
      circuit.  At $60,000/month, the T1's no joke, good thing it isn't
      my job to sell the downstream bandwidth.  :)
      Until we get equal-capacity lines, the 256K should just act as a fallback
      for the T1, never mind that it's going to be much slower.  It's better
      than totally disappearing off the face of the net.  
      miguel a.l. paraz  <map at iphil dot net>                              +63-2-893-0850
      iphil communications, makati city, philippines          <> 
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net