[HECnet] Multinet peerings...?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-01-14 21:50, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>> As for cost tweaking for other areas (areas without multiple area
>> routers that is), I do not believe that tweaking the costs to favor
>> Multinet links will improve life. But I'm interested to hear theories
>> that claims otherwise, and we can try figuring out if they make sense.
>
> If nodes that are both on the bridge-ethernet and also acts as
> multinet hubs had a resonable high metric on their ethernets...

Could you explain why you think this is better?

Now, I just did realize one possible reason, and that is since all 
bridges use Update as a hub, the UDP packets run through there, even if 
talking between two nodes in the US. That is suboptimal. Now, the bridge 
don't have to be setup that way, it's just been the case that people 
have decided to use Update as the hub. It would make much more sense to 
have a couple of bridge hubs in the US - say one west, and one east. 
Have west bridge connect to east bridge, and have east bridge connect to 
Update. And then people connect to the hub in reasonable vicinity.

But the bridge as such, are not worse than the multinet links. If your 
only reason is because of the current topology of the bridge itself, 
then yes, for some it will be a win to favor the multinet links. Mostly 
people in the US. For others, it might definitely be worse.

It all depends. It's not just a simple case of one size fits all.

	Johnny