> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > > > > On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care. > > Agree. > > We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough > link capacity > > >> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream >> providers. > > Which is what I said at the end of my reply to you. > > The ring angle came up as part of a wider discussion earlier in this > thread, where protecting the FIB makes sense. > > >> Even if you’re in a ring if you’ve got two transit providers at some random >> point on the ring, it still probably doesn’t make a meaningful difference >> between full feeds from each vs. ECMP, because it’s pretty unlikely that the >> AS PATH length is affected by the ring length. > > In my experience, rings are normally on-net backbones (Metro-E, e.t.c.). > The terminating devices on the core side at each end of the ring will be > your own equipment, and not another AS. > > Two links to your upstream won't matter whether it's in a ring or just > plain point-to-point circuits, as there is no IGP relevance on such tails. > > Mark. >
Hence my confusion about your ring comments in the context of the message I was replying to. Owen
