On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also high (around 30%).
This is an interesting piece of work, and highlights an interesting model (40% table size saving hurts 30% of traffic.)
No, it hits 30% of the *routes*. I'll make a truly wild guess and say that those 30% of routes actually only represent 0.3% of the *traffic* for most providers, and the *only* people who really care are the AS that's doing the deaggregate... Eduardo - if you still have the lab setup and netflow/whatever data, is there any way to tell if any of those 30% routes affected are in any way "high traffic" sites?