Re: [nsp] Multi-Homing without BGP

From: Cliff Judge (cliff@broccoli.cidera.com)
Date: Fri Oct 13 2000 - 11:22:55 EDT


On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Tony Tauber wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Cliff Judge wrote:
>
> >
> > I would suggest balancing on a per-packet basis in this kind of situation
> > (i.e. don't enable ip route-cache on the interfaces)...you cannot control
> > the routes you are placing into your cache this way, so it is best to
> > throw the packets evenly out both interfaces.
>
> Excuse me?!? Why is it best?
>
> I'll tell you why it's worse:
>
> Chosing between two providers to some distant location the delay
> is liable to vary considerably thus, there's a high probability
> of packets arriving out of order which will likely cause
> retransmission requests from the destination IP stack which
> thinks it's missing intermediate segments.
> Excessive retransmissions will not only waste bandwidth but slow
> effective data transfer between application layers significantly.
>
> I'm from the camp of thinking that originating your routes
> via BGP from your own AS is the cleanest way to multihome;
> however, if you're just recieving some sort of default from
> your upstreams, all above still holds.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing scenarios where multihoming with
BGP was not possible due to hardware contraints.

-%
Cliff Judge Network Engineer
301-598-0500 x2866 Cidera, Inc



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:18 EDT