's performance routing feature, and features from load
> balancing companies such as F5's Link Controller. I have always found BGP to
> be easy to work with, and an elegant, simple solution to load balancing using
> a route-reflector configuration in which one BGP client (Routescience
> Pathcontrol in my background) learns the best route to destination networks,
> and then announces that best route to BGP border routers using common and
> widely understood BGP concepts such as communities and local pref, and found
> this to lead to a deterministic Internet routing architecture. This required
> a knowledge only of IETF standards (common BGP concepts and configurations),
> required no specialized scripting, or any other knowledge lying outside IETF
> boundaries, and it seemed reasonable to expect that network engineers should
> eagerly and enthusiastically want to master this technology, just as any
> other technology must be mastered to run high availability networks.
>
> So I am wondering if anyone has experience with implementing load balancing
> across multiple ISP links in 2011, and if there have been any comparisons
> between IETF standards-based methods using BGP, and other proprietary methods
> which may use a particular vendor's approach to solving the same problem, but
> involves some complexity with more variables to be plugged in to the
> architecture.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is
> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination,
> distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the
> communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from your system.
>
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
> *
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM, oliver rothschild
wrote:
> This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely
As a suggestion, could you please in the future not use a subject such as
"Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56" for posts. It is MUCH better to
use a topical
> > inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
> > variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
> > for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
> > know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in
> > adva
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
know how much distance we are likely to get? Tha
2011/12/14 Justin M. Streiner
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
>>
On 15/12/11 09:54, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyo
6 matches
Mail list logo
