Erik Romijn wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:17:36PM +0100, Erik Romijn wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Erik Romijn wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:32:28AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
perhaps an indexed array of peer IP/AS numbers.
Nice idea. But how much would we save?
[..]
We save about 0.85Mbyte here. A RIS RIB dump on the biggest machine is
240M uncompressed. So we would save 0.35%.
I'm mixing up again here. That RIS RIB dump is not 200K routes, that
would be a FIB dump. The RIB dump is approximately 30M entries.
No it's not, it's 3M entries. Without indexing 18MB of peer info data,
with indexing 6MB.
Save of 12MB of 240, so 5% saving.
[Don't try to multiply numbers without a calculator right before lunch]
Erik,
I did some calculations with a Routeviews table dump which had
about 9.15M RIB entries and consumed 648MB uncompressed. By using
an index table and an MRT record per NLRI (instead of an MRT record
per RIB entry), I calculated a savings of around 36% to 415MB. I'll
post my proposed format in a bit. I agree that 5% savings is nothing
to get excited about, but 36% seems like it would be worth the effort.
Note that these numbers are for IPv4 peers with 16-bit AS'es. The savings
where peers have an IPv6 address or 32-bit AS would be higher.
-Larry
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
