North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Aggregation & path information [was: 200K prefixes - Weekly Routing Table Report]

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Sat Oct 14 12:55:02 2006

On Oct 14, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[email protected] ("Patrick W. Gilmore") writes:

Obviously the table contains kruft.  But I know we could not shrink
it to 109K prefixes without losing something from where I sit.  Are
you sure there's no additional path info?
before we could be sure that an aggregation proposal was nondestructive,
we'd have to model it from where a lot of people sit, not just patrick.
I do believe that was the point of my second & third sentence.

on the one hand this seems to be a useful endeavour. in addition to
measuring the total number of routes, we probably ought to measure the
number of non-TE-related routes, and focus our attention on those routes
and also the ratio ("global TE cost borne by the routing system.")
I'm not sure you could separate "TE routes" from "$FOO routes" externally. Unless you classify everything that doesn't go the way - you- think it should go as "TE". (Possibly a valid assumption.)

on the other hand i dispair of finding a set of observation posts and
metrics that will abstract TE out of the observed routes in a way that
wouldn't be seen as controversial or useless by most of the community.
Since we are discussing putting pressure on people who do stupid thing, not shooting them in the head, we do not need to be 100% accurate. A list of provider who most likely are filling the table, and then allowing people to filter, prod, annoy, e-mail, call, etc., those providers is enough. Right now we just have "these people could -theoretically- aggregate", without actually knowing if path info is lost.