Latest Version

[Metz, Eduard]

I agree that the handling the "size" of things in terms of resources and
convergence etc is becoming (or is) more and more a problem. Since size is a
problem, reducing size could be a solution, or at least reduce the problem
as such. Currently, the description seems very focussed on this. I wonder
whether there should not be more room left open for different solutions,
that e.g. handle "size" differently, or converge in another way, etc.
Reducing size is a solution, but probably not the only one. Also given that
routing tables keep growing, we may end up at the same or bigger size anyway
... (even when reducing them now). 

cheers,
	Eduard

ps.1 How does this group relate to the "future domain routing" initiative on
the routing-research list (if at all)?
ps.2 Minor comment: First section, "Internet resources" should probably be
something like "router resources".



> 
> DESCRIPTION:
> 
> Routing table growth has been an issue of much concern.  Many 
> have talked
> about temporary methods to alleviate the drain on Internet 
> resources.  In the
> vein of these discussions, we started to consider aggregation 
> and filtering
> techniques to reduce the amount of routing information 
> carried by routers with
> global knowledge.
> 
> The purpose of the Prefix Taxonomy Ongoing Measurement & Inter Network
> Experiment WG is to consider and measure the problem of routing table
> growth and possible interim methods for reducing the impact of routing
> table resource consumption within a network and the global 
> Internet.  The
> first step of the WG is to define the impacts on routing resource
> consumption and to identify the problems facing routing scalability.
> 
> We believe the next step is to develop suggestions for filtering and
> aggregating prefixes to reduce an individual networks routing 
> table size
> and route processing load and possible knobs with the least loss of
> reachability if such methods are determined to be feasible in 
> addressing
> the problem.  This work may possibly define a framework for 
> larger efforts
> to address the problems facing interdomain routing scalability.
> 
> GOALS:
> 
> 1) To provide a clear definition of the problems facing Internet
>    Routing Scaling today.  This includes routing table size and route
>    processing load.
> 2) To provide a taxonomy to describe prefix information for 
> peer review.
> 3) To collate measurements of routing table scaling data and publish a
>    reference list.
> 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.
> 5) To determine the long and short term effects of 
> filtering/aggregating
>    prefixes to reduce router resource consumption.
> 6) To develop methods of controlling policy information propagation in
>    order to limit the need for propagation of prefix sub-aggregates.
> 
> MILESTONES:
> 
> Nov 01 - Submit Taxonomy Draft
> Dec 01 - Submit Problem Statement Draft
> Jan 02 - Submit References Draft
> Feb 02 - Submit Policy Propagation Draft
> 
> Some Relevant References:
> 
> http://www.antc.uoregon.edu/route-views/
> http://www.pch.net/routing/BGP_table_size.html
> http://moat.nlanr.net/AS
> http://www.pch.net/documents/data/routing-tables/route-views.o
regon-ix.net/
http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html
http://www.telstra.net/ops/bgp/index.html
http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp
http://www.merit.edu/ipma