On Sun, Sep 14, 2008, matthew zeier wrote: > I would be interested in the results of such an experiment (I was about > to research this this week myself). > > Church, Charles wrote: > >I got curious last week when I saw this thread. From my (AS 26296) > >point of view, there aren't a whole lot of routes in the /25 to /29 > >range, maybe a couple hundred total when I looked at it last week. The > >/24s were huge, about 142,000. I'm curious how many of those /24s are > >covered by larger aggregates. Might be a fun experiment figuring out a > >safe way to filter those. Probably involve AS path length, maybe RIR > >allocations.
If your trust your upstream to get your outbound packets to their eventual destination, then you don't -need- a full table; it just makes outbound TE easier. If you have a lot of peering and unreliable transit (!) then sure, full table is a win. You -can- do differential outbound TE without needing a full BGP table. You just need to find a way to get traffic metrics for flows -to- destinations (netflow? on a sup2? surely you jest Adrian..) and then you can craft temporary injected routes into your Sup2 to do traffic balancing without anywhere near a full table. (Of course, this all falls apart the moment your upstreams start doing dumb stuff like feeding gigabits of traffic through a hacky Sup2 + route injection + filtering, but hey, you're paying -transit- so you don't necessarily need to do all of those wonderful BGP tricks with massively high end kit being pushed to its performance/bug limit, right? :) Adrian _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
