On Wed, 30 May 2007, Mike Hammett wrote: > Well, that's just it, it doesn't just take the same routes and MPLS has > nothing to do with it. What I gather, is that instead of BGP deciding > the packet path based purely on AS hop count, it tests the destinations > for latency, packet loss, jitter, etc. and then selects the best > provider for that given destination. When provider X has a congested > peering point (or an administrative peering dispute) you don't have to > tweak your routers to avoid it, you just get the clean, filtered route > table (if a BGP customer). While more than provider X, it is > cheaper\easier than if you were to get provider A, B, C, D, E, F, G, > etc. and manually tweak it. While most services don't really care about > those metrics, they are critical for VoIP, gaming, etc. If only it was the case. This is *hard* problem. You've described the 100000 feet overview of how it *should* work. It doesn't quite work that way.
I'll give you a simple example: A route announced as /20 that is split between multiple locations on provider's network. If you try to optimize traffic based on /20 route without knowledge that it is in fact going to multiple destinations inside provider's network, you will make performance *worse* rather than better. Go back to school. > They are also a great value for low commit users. Better negotiating skills. -alex _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
