Subject: [IMRG] [of marginal oper. interest [bgp reflecting actual traffic flow (or not)]]

From: k claffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:44:28 -0800

[ per WG chair suggestion, ]
sent this to e2e hoping thread pursued on only
one mailing list but wasn't sure which 
one would hate it more. fwiw.
  
critical feedback/corrections/thoughts welcome
k
  
  ----- Forwarded message from k claffy <[email-masked]> -----
  
    Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:26:30 -0800
    From: k claffy <[email-masked]>
    Subject: bgp reflecting actual traffic flow (or not)
    To: [email-masked]
    Cc: Rajesh Talpade <[email-masked]>

    
    8 months may be my record for email latency
    impressive huh
    
    On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:27:50PM -0400, Rajesh Talpade wrote:
      > kc wrote:
      > would recommend against assumptions of either symmetric paths
      > or bgp reflecting actual traffic flow
      > unless you're writing science fiction
      
      always wondered about what new career i could launch into! :-)
      
      seriously, what's a good reference for your second point about bgp not
      reflecting actual traffic flow?
    
    preliminary tech report finally up, have not wanted
    to publish till we had more complete results
    but that might not be in community's best interest so here:
    http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2003/ASP/
    (also linked from 'what's new' on caida.org)
    
    remark reckon it's not going to surprise any operators, 
    and it's still only a piece of the interdomain alchemistry,
    
    but there we bgp
    k
  
----- End forwarded message -----

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
IMRG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imrg