>Why would you want to, I mean if you're connected to 2 ases, isn't the
>point that from any prospective source, the best path to you should be
>taken?
>
> Bri
I can't quite track when either "load balancing" or "load sharing"
entered this discussion. The former is the more difficult: assuming
equal cost paths, ensuring that an equal amount of traffic flows over
each path. At best, this can be controlled in the outward direction
only, and still may not be very precise. Per-packet load balancing
among different AS is likely to cause terrible out-of-sequence
effects. Per-destination load balancing works well only to the
extent that the essentially identical amount of traffic goes to each
destination. Per-source-destination-pair is probably the best
available method.
Load sharing does not pretend to be as precise as load balancing, and
thus is more likely to be realistic. Nevertheless, the BGP routing
system was never designed to do eiter load balancing or load sharing.
There is an increasing tendency to inject more-specific routes into
it for load-sharing/traffic control, backup, etc., and it is this
injection of additional state that is raising serious concerns about
the overall scalability of this routing system.
>
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Circusnuts wrote:
>
>> I don't believe you can successfully load balance too two separate AS's
>> (ISP's), from a single AS (say your domain). BGP does not work that'a way.
>> You'd have to have separate gateway AS's coming from the two ISP's & have
>> IBGP make the decisions within the domain (bellow the two gateways).
>>
>> Does this make sense ??? Am I on target :-)
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Alassar, Sonia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: "'John Neiberger'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 7:28 PM
>> Subject: RE: Autonomous Systems
>>
>>
>> > over time, a planned migration would likely be advantageous, from a
>> > management perspective.
>> >
>> > Bri
>> >
>> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Alassar, Sonia wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yes, I am speaking about routing on the internet with BGP-4. If I am a
>> > > carrier that has 1 AS and I purchase another network (that has multiple
>> > > ASes) from another carrier, should I integrate them into a single AS, or
>> > > keep them as multiple AS? It is not that I want to have multiple AS,
>> > > however, I will have them via the acquisition. The question is should I
>> keep
>> > > them separate, or migrate them into one. What added benefit do I get if
>> I
>> > > have one? A second question is if 1 AS is so great, why do Sprint,
>> WorldCom,
>> > > AT&T, and Genuity all have multiple AS?
>> > >
> > > > Sonia
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
