On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Gargi Nalawade <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the case you describe where the RR advertises the client routes back to > the clients, > all the prefixes - P1, P2, P3, P12, P23 & P31 would be advertised in 1 packet > which 'could be advertised in one packet' (if there aren't other things associated with the routes which make it not packable in a single bgp packet which may span more than 1 IP packet). > gets replicated to all 3 clients (assuming all 3 are in a peer-group and the > rest of the > attributes are same). > > Now if we change it so that the RR does not advertise the client's own routes > back to it, > the RR would end up formatting & sending - in the best case, 3 BGP updates > instead of 1. > > My point is - no matter what efficiencies we build into an implementation - > mandating > that the RR not advertise client routes back to clients, would increase the > #BGP updates > processed by the RR and all the "n" RR-clients as well as on the wire by > n-fold in the worst > case. only the RR is affected in this case, it makes 'more than one' packet, one for each client... right? -Chris _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
