On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
piotr.1234@interia.pl (Piotr) wrote:
What's the reason, there are some telecoms,isp that have paths eastbound, southbound but in routing table they prefer longer path via US ?
Come on - you do know that it's called "policy" routing for a reason? Costs, reserved bw/s for high-rollers, capacity...
Sure, you can use static routes as well[1]. For those that are interested you can take a look at http://www.submarinecablemap.com/ to get an idea of what path might be feasible. I will say that telecom costs tend to be related to political stability, so when computing shortest path cost often comes into play. Also, What I'm often reminding people is low-latency isn't always the right solution, because loss is more important. I am less concerned about another 25-100ms if there is little jitter and zero loss. - Jared [1] - https://twitter.com/jaredmauch/status/583227901555961856 -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.