I agree with Tony, if you are static routing the best possible approach
would be to balance on a per-destination basis in an attempt to limit
packet disorder, however without running BGP and receiving at least some
internet routes you have no control over whether your outbound packets
are taking the most optimum route. If the low end router is a concern
with running BGP, you might talk to your providers about at least
receiving partial routes so that your router can make at least somewhat
educated routing decisions.
-Dave
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.
>
> Tony
-- **=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=** Dave McGaugh, CCNA Data Network Technician Electric Lightwave, Inc. Direct Dial: 360.816.3718 Fax: 360.816.3522 E-mail: dmcgaugh@eli.net **=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=**=+=**
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:18 EDT