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

  • From: Mark Tinka
  • Date: Sun Sep 09 10:04:19 2007 
On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:30, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> If BGP is an incremental protocol (which of course, I
> know it is), why doesn't a certain vendor treat it that
> way?
>
>  *cough* BGP Scanner *cough*.

Interesting you should mention this as we are planning to 
test an "improvement" to the BGP Scanner process, BGP 
Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking.

Some notes from the vendor:

"The BGP Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking feature is 
enabled by default when a supporting Cisco IOS software 
image is installed. BGP next-hop address tracking is event 
driven. BGP prefixes are automatically tracked as peering 
sessions are established. Next-hop changes are rapidly 
reported to the BGP routing process as they are updated in 
the RIB. This optimization improves overall BGP convergence 
by reducing the response time to next-hop changes for 
routes installed in the RIB. When a bestpath calculation is 
run in between BGP scanner cycles, only next-hop changes 
are tracked and processed."

How much of an improvement this will make is what we are 
hoping to find out.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachment: pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature