IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: load-sharing/load-balancing 2 T1s (fwd)

Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Sat, 09 March 1996 19:17 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12082; 9 Mar 96 14:17 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12078; 9 Mar 96 14:17 EST
Received: from p-o.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08254; 9 Mar 96 14:17 EST
Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA19885 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:52:27 GMT
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:52:20 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199603091852.KAA14479@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: bgp@ans.net
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <199603091822.KAA16039@puli.cisco.com> (message from Paul Traina on Sat, 09 Mar 1996 10:22:01 -0800)
Subject: Re: load-sharing/load-balancing 2 T1s (fwd)
X-Orig-Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bgp@ans.net

	Why does BGP pick only one route when it has several options? 

     90% historical reasons.

   I don't consider those reasons historical.  There's no practical way, with
   the currently specified BGP-4 to carry the kind of information you need to
   even make equal-cost path determinations,  much less unequal-cost load
   sharing.  However, that's really not necessary.  

Agreed.  It is the AS path problem that was the historical reason.

Tony

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email