|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
Alexei Roudnev wrote: mostly correct --If this 500K routes come from upstream, it is just _default_ so can be installed instantly if configuration is correct. you're talking about a RIB->FIB optimization -- potentially no need to populate 500K FIB entries as they essentially result in the 'same' path. however, note that this works both ways -- these are 'more specific' prefixes so should always take priority over a '0/0' route. also note that if the upstream stops announcing a '0/0' route, then you're going to have to instantiate those 500K prefixes awfully quickly... it would be "broken" if an optimization such as this meant that you had even one second of blackholing traffic destined to one of those 500K prefixes while an 'optimization' instantiated forwarding entries that should have been there in the first place... in my humble view, i'd argue that this is but one part of building a router and there are potentially many many more things that one needs to optimize for. this is the whole "populate the forwarding table on demand" approach (a.k.a. "route cache") versus "prepopulate the forwarding table" (a.k.a. CEF).If this 500K routes are from the peer, you switch (in reality) 10 - 20%, so it is simpler anyway. Even if it is multihome customer, there is not any need in _fast_ installation for these 500K routes. You just switch from one provider to another _some_ of the routes - if it takes 1 minute, nothing wrong happen. i think history has shown that the latter is far more necessary than the former. think DDoS attack. the former works provided you're not pushing traffic to bogus addresses. it may be that under 'normal' conditions you have traffic going to less than 20% of prefixes. but think of a worm/virus looking for new hosts to infect - typically guessing random ip-addresses to probe. cheers, lincoln.
|