Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

  • From: Sean M. Doran
  • Date: Wed Aug 26 15:13:17 1998

Vadim replying to me wrote:

| > Actually the distribution problem is pretty simple.
| > 
| > In your forwarding table add a per-prefix cost.
| > 
| > The cost is expressed in terms of tokens.
| > 
| > The tokens are deducted from a token bucket.
| > 
| > The number of tokens in the bucket (depth and refresh-rate) is
| > arrived at by some engineering or sales process.
| > 
| > This polices MEDs nicely.
|  
| Hm.  Aggregation breaks that scheme nicely.  Absense of
| aggregation breaks routing nicely.

Remember Yakov's route push and route pull model.

In the system above, when you have multiple connections to
someone sending you only very short (aggregate) prefixes,
you have an incentive to do a route pull in order to
optimize your routing.   That is, you can acquire information about
the other network to help you choose the cheapest entry point.

Moreover, the route pull does not have to be very dynamic
in order to increase (as opposed to maximize) the number of 
packets you are able to send into the network.

	Sean.

P.S.: There is also a direct trade-off -- choosing the most expensive
      entry point merely minimizes the number of packets one will be
      able to inject into the other network for any given token-bucket-
      refresh-rate.  Rather than choose cheaper entry points, one could
      simply choose to buy a faster refresh-rate.




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.