On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
Same reason no vendor has bothered to prune redundant RIB entries (i.e. more-specific pointing to the same NH as a covering route) when programming the TCAM...
Hi Chris, Not so much, no. Pruning seemingly redundant entries from BGP is actually impossible to do safely, or if not impossible at least no one has demonstrated a successful algorithm that can prune even a single entry anywhere but the BGP source node or a BGP leaf node. And there's not much point in pruning the BGP RIB at a BGP leaf node -- DRAM to hold the RIB once received and processed is plentiful and inexpensive. Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as long as you're willing to accept the conversion of "null route" to "don't care." Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in typical backbone nodes looked possible. That's 30% of your TCAM reclaimable. For the moment it seems to be cheaper to just build bigger TCAMs. Cheaper for the router vendors anyway. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?