[HECnet] Multinet peerings...?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-01-14 22:32, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>>
>> 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 sounds like you're reinventing routing... but if you want routing, why not have the routing layer do it?

Well, kindof. It's actually more of - if you want to run a wire between 
build A and B, it makes sense to draw the wire directly between A and B, 
without crossing the Atlantic twice, even though that also works...

With virtual cables, doing such cabling is way too easy...

> The bridge is a nice mechanism, and a very simple way to do straightforward things.  But if you run into situations where it isn't the right tool, having the DECnet routing mechanisms solve it for you is probably the simplest answer.

Sortof. See above...

	Johnny