Thus spake "Pete Kruckenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article1018.html > --- > This might be easier to understand if it was more technical, > but I'm only aware of a lot of disabled features on my > routers that are supposed to in theory do some of these > things.
And they're disabled because they often result in routing loops, usually transient but sometimes permanent. With very careful planning, you can create scenarios where these features help; however, it's usually cheaper to add capacity than to improve efficiency when you include engineering and operational costs. > Abstractions and analogies aside, is this really a problem, > and is it really worth solving? Sounds like a lot of > additional complexity for the supposed benefits. Some carriers are solving this problem with MPLS-TE, but not the way the author suggests. Other than the MPLS-TE solution, I'm not aware of any ISPs that use congestion- or RTT-based routing. [E]IGRP is the only IGP with a mechanism to implement this on a packet level, and experience shows it is unstable in most topologies. S
