> From: Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>
>> Overall, then, it is desirable to remove overlapping routes from the
>> global routing table where possible.
> People inject prefixes into the DFZ for specific reasons. If they are
> pruned by some upstream providers but not others, then the traffic
> engineering model is broken because you can no longer depend on
> more-specifics having visibility around the dfz.
Doing traffic engineering by injecting more-specifics into the global
destination-vector routing is a top pick on my list of 'optimal illustration
for hammer-nail syndrome'. So if we break that approach, that's not a bug,
that's a feature.
Of course, doing traffic engineering 'right' would involve getting rid of
this archaic, creaky destination-vector routing architecture, and that is
going to be a huge project.
But in the meantime, there are approaches that are create slightly less
overhead for everyone in the entire system: e.g. using the identity/location
binding layer - there are several choices available at the moment. They're
just as ugly (architecturally), but at least fewer entities have to bear the
overhead costs (which are less in toto, too).
Noel
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
