[85912] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elmar K. Bins)
Wed Oct 19 03:34:25 2005
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:31:09 +0200
From: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>,
Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0201A5B961@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Susasn,
> Using the compression ("cooking") per router can provide one level of
> abstraction [reduction of prefix space] at router. So cooking down your
> Large number of routes to a "minimum" set of routes can provide some
> leverage against the prefix growth.
By cooking down the prefixes you unfortunately lose topology information
which might be a bad thing, and at the same moment disrespect the site's
wish to how it would like to be routed. Another bad thing, if you think
of companies/sites paying for the entire network in the long run.
Apart from that, IMHO cooking down the prefixes only buys time, but does
not solve the problem. More people will multihome, and with the current
mechanisms and routing cloud, they have to do it by injecting prefixes.
I'm not sure whether this hasn't long become an architectural question
and should be moved to the (new) IETF arch list. Opinions?
Yours,
Elmi.
PS: Btw, anyone can give me a hint on where to discuss new ideas for
e.g. routing schemes (and finding out whether it's an old idea)?
--
"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
(PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)
--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
