MED is evil? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt)
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Thu, 17 October 2002 16:31 UTC
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16733 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CEF05912C7; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A04B2912C8; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0E9912C7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B0A45DDA9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEBB5DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA88148; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:33:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org)
Message-Id: <200210171633.MAA88148@workhorse.fictitious.org>
To: danny@tcb.net
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org
Subject: MED is evil? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:52:15 MDT." <200210171552.g9HFqFk11109@tcb.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:33:26 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
In message <200210171552.g9HFqFk11109@tcb.net>, Danny McPherson writes: > > > Just the fact that so many knobs are available sheds light on the > > fact that many ISPs think MEDs are just evil and should be stripped. > > And I tend to agree... > > -danny Whether to strip MED depends on what you are trying to accomplish with MED. Consider the case where ISP A and ISP B peer at multiple places and A is directly connected to destination X and B is directly connected to destination Y. Some ISPs consider it "fair" if both ISPs take the shortest path out of their own netork to the other. In this case both will strip MED before advertising to the IGP. They will usually accept MED for the purpose of determining which of multiple routers to select at a peering point. If ISP A has a much faster or less congested network than ISP B, ISP A may accept MED from ISP B and route based on MED. If ISP B sets MED according to IGP cost, then a longer path might be taken through the ISP A network but the shortest path will be taken in ISP B's network in both directions. This is often the case if B is a customer of A. Curtis
- I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Internet-Drafts
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Danny McPherson
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Tian Fang
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Danny McPherson
- MED is evil? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson… Curtis Villamizar