Re: Performance metrics used in commercial BGP route optimizers

[Michael Still <stillwaxin () gmail com>]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:38 AM Hank Nussbacher <hank () efes iucc ac il> wrote:
> On 16/07/2019 20:41, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:33 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
> > More like do whatever you want in your own house as long as you don't infringe upon others.
>
>
> That's where the rub is; when using "BGP optimisers" to influence public Internet routing, you cannot guarantee you 
> won't infringe upon others.
>
> > The argument against route optimizers (assuming appropriate ingress\egress filters) is a religious one and should be 
> > treated as such.
>
> There is a difference between BGP optimizers and route optimizers.  When was the last time you heard a complain about 
> Akamai screwing up the global routing table over the past 12 years:
>
> https://www.akamai.com/us/en/about/news/press/2007-press/akamai-introduces-advanced-communications-protocol-for-accelerating-dynamic-applications.jsp
>
> https://developer.akamai.com/legacy/learn/Optimization/SureRoute.html
>
> -Hank

Along these same lines I'd like to point out that nearly all or
possibly even all incidents in recent memory are attributable to a
single product whereas there has been at least one other product on
the market for something like 15+ years that AFAIK has not had a
single incident associated with it (and also does not create more
specific prefixes as part of its operation). So is it really that one
product is spoiling the market for the rest here or are they all bad?

-- 
[stillwaxin () gmail com ~]$ cat .signature
cat: .signature: No such file or directory
[stillwaxin () gmail com ~]$