Latest Version

[abha ahuja]

Hi Noel!

>     > to consider and measure the problem of routing table growth and
>     > possible interim methods for reducing the impact of routing table
>     > resource consumption ... The first step of the WG is to define the
>     > impacts on routing resource consumption
>
> In the long run, the problem with large tables is not resource consumption so
> much as increased stabilization time (with respect to any particular
> destination, of course - the table as a whole is changing all the time in a
> network this big).

Totally agree!  Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of misconception
about what the problem really is, thus the first goal of this WG is to
define it for all to see....

Filtering/better aggregation has the benefit that it reduces the scope of
"detailed" info propagation to help improve the stabilization time of the
system as a whole.

> Bandwidth is already not a problem, and CPU power and memory is getting
> cheaper all the time, which might lead some people "out there" to think that
> we can grow our way out of the problem with faster/bigger hardware. "Time" is
> not traditionally thought of as a resource... :-)

:)

>
>     > 4) To discuss and document methods of filtering/aggregating prefix
>     > information and to discuss and document what support from protocols or
>     > vendor knobs that might be helpful in doing this.
>     > In addition, to suggest policy guidelines to RIRs, LIRs and/or ISPs for
>     > allocations, etc. that may be useful.
>
> I would have said "allocations and aggregations", since it's the latter that
> is the only solution.

Will fix.

> (And it might be worth discussing that, and getting general agreement to that
> point, and making a point of stating that better aggregation is the *only*
> technique known for making routing scale.)

*grin*

Thanks, Noel!

-abha ;)