[101021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 BGP Table Reduction Analysis - Prefixes Filter by RIRs Minimum Allocations Boundaries
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sun Dec 2 15:21:34 2007
To: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
Cc: Eduardo Ascenco Reis <eduardo@intron.com.br>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST."
<FBED310B-A20F-4139-921E-59C5A173B37F@nosignal.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:19:14 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1196626754_2962P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
> On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
> > The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP
> > table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also
> > high (around 30%).
>
> This is an interesting piece of work, and highlights an interesting
> model (40% table size saving hurts 30% of traffic.)
No, it hits 30% of the *routes*. I'll make a truly wild guess and say that
those 30% of routes actually only represent 0.3% of the *traffic* for most
providers, and the *only* people who really care are the AS that's doing
the deaggregate...
Eduardo - if you still have the lab setup and netflow/whatever data, is there
any way to tell if any of those 30% routes affected are in any way "high
traffic" sites?
--==_Exmh_1196626754_2962P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHUxNCcC3lWbTT17ARAlFCAKD+HijWJScHvJXtELJ2IyfnNTf8WwCg1toV
LaPFYxMgV3KCkQvh3suN/a0=
=ZOia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1196626754_2962P--
