14 Jan
2016
14 Jan
'16
10:11 p.m.
On 2016-01-14 21:50, Peter Lothberg wrote:
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 all depends. It's not just a simple case of one size fits all.
Johnny
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...