|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Russ White wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Maybe this is a dumb question, but why isn't there a BGP option to just > > filter more specific routes that have the same AS path as the larger > > aggregate? This would allow the networks that announce more specifics for > > traffic engineering to still accomplish that, while throwing away the > > garbage from someone else that decides to announce their /19 as 33 routes > > for no apparent reason. Sure, this would fail if a network decided to > > only announce /24's for example without a larger aggregate, but how many > > networks are really doing that? > > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/I-D/draft-grow-bounded-longest-match-00.txt > > As a matter of fact. > > :-) > > Russ That draft seems pretty sensible and in my opinion does more good than the other options like filtering all routes that are longer than the RIR minimum or hoping that the offenders magically wake up one day and decide to clean up their announcements. I think my suggestion is less complicated than what is contained in the draft however. I'm simply saying that we need an option, we'll call it squash-worthless-more-specifics, that you can apply on any specific BGP neighbor. Supposing you receive the following routes...... 192.168.0.0/16 AS11111 AS22222 AS33333 192.168.1.0/24 AS11111 AS22222 AS33333 192.168.2.0/24 AS11111 AS55555 AS44444 AS33333 192.168.3.0/24 AS11111 AS22222 AS33333 It would keep the 192.168.0.0/16 and 192.168.2.0/24 because they have different AS Paths and throw away 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.3.0/24. Judging from the CIDR-REPORT this would eliminate alot of garbage without affecting connectivity to people that are multi-homing with smaller PA blocks, or announcing more specifics to different providers for traffic engineering. Forrest
|