🚀 go-pugleaf

In <48pk2c$2ih$1@haywire.DIALix.COM>
peter@haywire.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) writes:

|  8  border4-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.3.163)  7.649 ms  7.532 ms  13.458 ms
|  9  aarnet.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.35.6)  196.438 ms  188.199 ms  191.951 ms
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 10  * national-aix-us.gw.au (139.130.29.1)  207.283 ms  203.449 ms

| Note that all traffic is going via San Francisco/Melbourne
| (national-aix-us.gw.au is a name for the USA interface on national.gw.au)

There is no US interface on the national gateway ("aix" is someone's idea
of a label for part of the hub ethernet in Melb - Australian Internet
eXchange).

| The other odd bit is that the delay going from the mci core border to
| the aarnet router in SanFrancisco is incurring a large hit.. Could
| that be flooded too perhaps?

Huh?   "aarnet.SanFrancisco.mci.net" a name for the US serial
link interface on the box called "usa.gw.au" - that is in Australia.

Even if you didn't know that, and there's no real reason you should,
consider the delats, 180 ms (approx) from border4 to aarnet... and
then another few ms (5-10) from aarnet... to national-aix.   Which of
those is likely to bethe cross pacific link?   Really!

This is a good chance to remind everyone that DNS labels provide a way to
convert human usable, and relatively stable, identifiers into the relatively
meaningless (except to IP routing) and human unfriendly IP addresses
that are requried to transport data.   Reading anything more than "this name
was assigned by xxx" into a DNS name is usually a mistake.   They don't
have the meanings that people like to attribute to them.

| I suspect that TIS are going to have to bite the bullet and split the
| australian bgp "area" into two parts...

This would enable symmetric routing, for what that is worth (something,
but not necessarily a lot).   It would also mean that which link you are
using for incoming traffic (which is the only direction that really matters,
the outgoing links aren't congested) would depend entirely upon who you are
(where your site is connected), whereas now it depends on who you are talking
to (where the other site is connected).   If one of the links is better
than the other that would means some Aust sites would always get the "good"
one, and others always the "bad" one.   The current scheme is probably better,
regardless of issues of routing table sizes in the US.

kre