On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote: [...]
My approach avoids the use of BGP, but not for the above stated reasons. As I said at the SF NANOG, it is hard to get transit providers to send a full BGP table, it is hard to accept it, and it would take a modified GateD that randomized destinations in order to keep BGP's path selection from leading 90% of your routes down 1/Nth of your transit providers. BGP was the wrong answer.
Were the majority of your paths going down one single provider because of a silly tie-breaker like the numeric value of the IP address of the peer, or was it because that provider had a shorter AS path? If its the latter, where's the problem? If one provider has a better path and you aren't out of bandwidth on the connection to that provider, why would you want to take a different path? -- Matt Ranney - mjr@ranney.com This is how I sign all my messages.