On 17/05/2012 13:21, Russ White wrote: > The first thing to note is this draft specifically attacks FIB table > size without modifying the routing table size. Since I'm not convinced > that FIB size, as opposed to the on-the-wire table size, is a problem > that needs to be addressed, I'm not certain about the overall utility of > the mechanism outlined here. > > Is there any reason to suspect that forwarding table size is "the" > problem in hand?
As an operator who needs to juggle between upgrade costs and actually running a network, I'd tend to be of the opinion that it sucks to retire a router from dfz operation because of fib size constraints. There are hacks to deal with on-the-wire size. They are probably uglier that virtual aggregation, and certainly messier to maintain. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
