Hi folks, I couldn't attend but I had two questions about the FIB aggregation draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-fibaggregation-02):
1. The level 3 and 4 algorithms disregard the implicit default, right? A destination that falls through the routing table without matching a route is unreachable. You can think of this in terms as an implicit route for 0.0.0.0/0 with a next hop of: local process, compose ICMP unreachable. If I understood the paper, some or all of the address space within 0.0.0.0/0 which would otherwise hit that implicit default will be assigned an essentially random next hop, with the system depending on the TTL to eventually drop the packet. Have level 3 and level 4 been tested after adding an explicit default that has to be honored to see what difference it makes in the numbers? 2. If I understand figure 6 correctly, the numbers are the percentage of original size the FIB reduces to. So, 2008 level 4b, if you started with a 1000 entry FIB, after aggregation the FIB still contains 363 entries. Did I read it correctly? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
