On 31/08/2012 17:02, Noel Chiappa wrote: > On the actual subject of the document, I too agree it would be good to have a > document which looks in detail at aggregation in destination-vector routing > architectures; there are indeed some interesting 'issues' when you try and > automatically start aggregating more-specifics.
at the RIB layer, yes. At the rib->fib conversion layer, you can do a lot more as you're going to end up with an N:M mapping between prefixes (N) and next-hops (M), so it's relatively easy to delete more specifics if it happens that they have the same NH as the covering prefix. Obviously you can't do this at the RIB layer as easily because you can't afford to lose the information there. So the idea is good; it's just being applied to the wrong layer. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
