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]
On Oct 14, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[email protected] ("Patrick W. Gilmore") writes:before we could be sure that an aggregation proposal was nondestructive,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?
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 toI'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.)
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.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.