|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Patrick Evans wrote: > > Incidentally, how do people feel about the use of default routes to > work around the problem of routing table size on tier-2 (!) networks > and below? If all "small" edge networks pointed their default at one > or more of their upstreams, and filtered their outbound traffic to > remove things they wouldn't want to be able to get out anyway, it > would be down to the larger NSPs to deal with the issue of routing > table size for prefixes beyond a certain length. > Doesn't really fix anything, as it reduces control over which path > your outbound traffic takes, but I suppose at least it makes sure > it'll go -somewhere-? Pointing default is a stop-gap measure at best for the multi-homed entity on the edge. It does not reduce the size of the global table at all. It simply allows the edge entity to get by with using a less powerful router because they don't have to hold full views in their RIB. > On the flipside, who is actually less concerned about routing table > size? The multihomed networks on the edges who can use a default if > they want to, and are likely to be carrying less traffic and so have > more resources to deal with routing, or the core networks who have > capacity problems of their own? Everyone _should_ be concerned about table size unless they just have money to throw at their routers for grins and giggles. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
|