On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:14:38PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
I was kinda hoping that it would hit 200K on Tuesday, then I could have added the announcement to my aggregation recommendations lightning talk! ;-) Bit sad that a 200K table can be aggregated down to 109k prefixes with no loss of path information (in my BGP table view).
I find this interesting.
Obviously the table contains kruft. But I know we could not shrink it to 109K prefixes without losing something from where I sit. Are you sure there's no additional path info?
If there were a way to guarantee certain prefixes are completely superfluous, we could make a hit list of just those providers, then ridicule or filter or cause them pain in some way to make them stop causing us pain. I haven't seen that type of report posted publicly, just "this CIDR can fit in that one" without actual guarantees that _paths_ are equivalent. (Usually the origin AS is matched as well as the prefixes, but that's not the same as guaranteeing the path is equivalent.)
Of course, this is non-trivial. But then neither is aggregating the global table. :)
how much of this could be mitigated if people properly announced aggregates and used a provider-local no-export to balance their links with them? it does make those policies more complicated than the simple cut+paste examples that they've likely used in the past, but could possibly allow the "traffic-eng" with their upstream without the global pollution. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.