On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:30, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
If BGP is an incremental protocol (which of course, I know it is), why doesn't a certain vendor treat it that way?
*cough* BGP Scanner *cough*.
Interesting you should mention this as we are planning to test an "improvement" to the BGP Scanner process, BGP Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking. Some notes from the vendor: "The BGP Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking feature is enabled by default when a supporting Cisco IOS software image is installed. BGP next-hop address tracking is event driven. BGP prefixes are automatically tracked as peering sessions are established. Next-hop changes are rapidly reported to the BGP routing process as they are updated in the RIB. This optimization improves overall BGP convergence by reducing the response time to next-hop changes for routes installed in the RIB. When a bestpath calculation is run in between BGP scanner cycles, only next-hop changes are tracked and processed." How much of an improvement this will make is what we are hoping to find out. Cheers, Mark.