ColbyNA wrote: » What do you want to know exactly? Do a traceroute from your PC to a server in another country, you'll see all the hops/networks/ISPs your traffic goes through.
ColbyNA wrote: » So you want us to explain it all to you? That's a tall order, lol.
Dr_Atomic wrote: » No, but a good teacher can give a summary of a complex idea without having to give the entire lesson. My IT friend managed to give me the gist of it in about a minute to my satisfaction - but that was long ago, and I've forgotten the details. But don't worry about it. If you can't explain it without saying, "Go read the book," that's ok - I'll get the explanation elsewhere.
trackit wrote: » i think tou asked it in the wrong forum, here those CCIE guys know so much they just cant explain it to you in one forum post If you ask it from some beginners, then they will explain the whole Internet to you in one sentence
CCIEWANNABE wrote: » lets just put it this way, even in a trace, you don't see all the hops, not even close. what people have failed to mention here is that most service providers run mpls in their backbone (for obvious reasons, mpls switches packets based on a tag to represent an ip prefix like (192.168.1.0/24, which is alot faster for throughput for the traffic b/c an ip lookup in the fib does not need to occur (think, an ip lookup on an internet backbone with hundreds of thousands of routes could be very difficult), just a lookup in the lfib label forwarding information base), in which they disable you to trace through, well not disable, but for obvious reasons they don't want you to see their backbone devices and IP's, so what you are seeing is their edge to edge devices only, not their true backbone devices.
kalebksp wrote: » The point of MPLS is not speed, regular IP lookups and MPLS lookups take the same amount of time because they're both done in CEF. MPLS is used in ISPs because of the ability to have a BGP free core, MPLS VPNs and traffic engineering, among others.
kalebksp wrote: » The point of MPLS is not speed, regular IP lookups and MPLS lookups take the same amount of time because they're both done in CEF. MPLS is used in ISPs because of the ability to have a BGP free core, MPLS VPNs and traffic engineering, among others. The reason you don't see hops in an MPLS network is that they don't copy the TTL field from the IP header into the label. If the ISP configured them to do so then you would see the hops, but most don't because it shows internal information not useful or needed externally.
chrisone wrote: » Like Colby said its hard to explain it. The links he provided will give you and understanding. I guess just think of all the ISPs having a link (yes they have many links,) but for now lets just say each ISP have links to each other ISP globaly. Like phone numbers each country has an identification number or a mailing address, each country has them right? well the ISPs all comunicate with each other and most of then use a protocol called BGP. Many out there use ISIS but thats old and most ISPs use BGP. So when your internet traffic goes to ATT or whomever, it has routes to maybe another ISP , which has another route going to another ISP , and this chain link goes all the way back and forth to china. These links you can call them Autonomous Systems, which is like an area or domain for each ISP. AS(USA)---AS---AS----AS----AS---AS(China) LOL i know its crude and basic but there is so much to it, sorry maybe a Cisco Certified Internet Professional can chime in.
Dr_Atomic wrote: » I know *what* happens. I just want to find out the specifics of *how* it happens. For example, there are probably two dozen or so routers between the local one and the far end one in my scenario. How exactly does BGP locate that far-end router? Are there in fact *a few* routers in the U.S. that do nothing more than route a few thousand class A IPs from here all over the world (as one IT guy told me once)? I'm not a BGP-person, so I'm not up on this process.
trackit wrote: » If you ask it from some beginners, then they will explain the whole Internet to you in one sentence
CChN wrote: » I'll take it one step further and explain it to you in one word: dingleberry.