> "101 north is congested, take 280 instead"
> Guess what hapens 5 minutes laster;
> "280 north is congested, take 101 instead"
Sort of like the cruise control in my car. The car starts going too
fast and it *eases* off. The car starts going too slow and it adds
a *little* more throttle.
My cruise control works quite well. So could routers.
Your cruise control doesn't have to communicate with 80 other cruise
controls, each of which communicates with 80 other cruise controls,
each of which then has to decide whether they have to change any
course or acceleration settings based on the updated info.
Avi
CSMA/CD 
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Sorry to add more noise... but here's a thought:
Your cruise control doesn't have to communicate with 80 other cruise
controls, each of which communicates with 80 other cruise controls,
each of which then has to decide whether they have to change any
course or acceleration settings based on the updated info.
I'm basically a stub network. I take routes from 3 AS's right
now, but I don't redistribute anything I learn. The only
redistribution that goes on for me is in my iBGP peering.
The convincing argument for me against doing the "intelligent"
route selection has been related to the huge route flapping that
would ensue. My question is, if I'm not redistributing the routes
(except internally, and I have a certain tolerance for route flapping
internally) then why not do the intelligent route selection?
(the route selection would of course have dampening parameters
etc.. and be turned off by default, but have the ability to be enabled,
etc)
Ed Henigin
ed@texas.net