Thanks for the pointer to the paper! I just had a quick read. The ORTC
algorithm passes the tree 3 times and gives the optimal aggregation
when no extra routable space is allowed. The table size after
aggregation is around 60-70%.
Our level-4 result, however, shows that if extra space is allowed, the
table size after aggregation is 30-40%.
It'll be great if you could send us the ORTC code. We're very
interested in comparing it with other schemes under the same
environment.
Thanks,
---
beichuan
On Nov 11, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Beichuan Zhang wrote:
Quick synopsis:
ORTC performs FIB compression such that the number of entries in the
compressed FIB is the smallest. However, ORTC requires 3 passes if a
tree data structure is used to store the prefixes.
The compression achieved is roughly of the order of what is achieved
by level-4b (about 70% on recent tables from routeviews) but no
"new" routable space created that was previously unroutable.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Zartash Uzmi <zartash at gmail.com>
wrote:
I have a working implementation of ORTC and can make it available if
needed. The implementation has been tested for routing correctness,
on a large number of routeviews tables.
Zartash
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John G. Scudder <jgs at
juniper.net> wrote:
Constructing Optimal IP Routing Tables
Draves, R.P. King, C. Venkatachary, S. Zill, B.D.
INFOCOM '99
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=69698
(I got the acronym expansion wrong, it's "Optimal Routing Table
Constructor".)
--John
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
