Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!SEISMO.CSS.GOV!rick
From: rick@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Poor performance related to egp?
Message-ID: <8610310055.AA01124@beno.CSS.GOV>
Date: Thu, 30-Oct-86 19:55:52 EST
Article-I.D.: beno.8610310055.AA01124
Posted: Thu Oct 30 19:55:52 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 31-Oct-86 14:49:18 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa



I can't help but wonder if the poor internet performance is related to the
HORRIBLE routes that egp says to use.

I have seen improvements in round trip icmp echo times of 1000% by
ignoring the route egp says to use and manually forcing a route into
the system. In many cases, it is the difference between connecting
at all and timing out. Todays horrible case has been routing to
128.96 (bellcore.com) through lbl-milnet-gw instead of the rational
relay.cs.net. Other horrible routes have included rutgers through
purdue instead of the direct rutgers arpanet host.

Are the egp routes supposed to be reasonable? I'm not that familiar with
the theory behind them, but in practice, the suck badly. When I can get
a 10 to 1 performance improvement by hard coding specific routes to
override egp, I wonder if this is part of the internet congestion problem.

It seems like a major performance gain for everyone could be realized
by having the egp core systems advertise rational routes.

---rick