Re: load-balancing

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> I'd like to suggest that we use the term traffic engineering rather
>> than load balancing.  There are a number of variations on the load
>> sharing theme, but in the end it all looks rather like TE.
> 
> "Traffic engineering" implies, to me, some explicit steps taken to cause
> certain traffic to take certain links or paths, which is itself just one
> point on the load-sharing spectrum.  For example, a site may well wish
> that its multiple external links be usable at the same time, but not
> take any steps to actually influence which traffic takes which link,
> relying instead on whatever load sharing naturally arises just based
> on the proximity of sources and destinations to one link or another.
> So if you're looking for a generic term, I think your words "load
> sharing" or "traffic sharing" are better, with "traffic engineering"
> and "load balancing" being more specific requirements.

but 'balancing' is exactly what the customer wants.  they see it as
  o i am paying for two E1s
  o i am paying two isps for E1 service
  o i <bleep>ing well want to utilize them

so, while exact balancing, is not required, getting within say 10% is a
big goal.

of course, balancing this is a side discussion about the isp which is a
few AS hops away not wanting to listen to the extra prefixes generated by
the hole-punching that current v4 techniques use.  the "why should i incur
costs so that a distant party maximized their utilization?" argument.

but let's save that for another discussion.

randy