Just my .002. Maybe it could help in the discussion to make a distinction between subnets of an AS and different ASes. Clearly there is no solution for the latter. And for the first, there will be lots of controversy ;-) IPv6 BPs could mandate best aggregates only.
/PA El 17/10/2014 15:47, "Marc Binderberger" <[email protected]> escribió: > Hello Nick and Iljitsch, > > fairly stable baseline of 20-30%, which may be acceptable if it stays > there. > Although peaks of 70% (is the 100% a graph problem?) seem to be a reason > _for_ filtering. > > Now what I'm wondering > > (1) is there a need to carry all the deaggregates? Because if you are far > enough away they may "look the same as the aggregate". To use Iljitsch' > example ... > > > I know this is controversial. "Topology ain't geography". Actually, most > of > > the time there is a significant correlation. If all German cities inject > a > > more specific, do you really need to hear those in Tokyo or Seattle? Just > > send the traffic to Europe as per the aggregate and let them figure it > out > > there. > > ... it's likely that for an US ISP X, peering with European ISPs Y and Z > who > carry the various deaggregate plus aggregate from Germany, all the European > prefixes have this peering router as next hop (let's say we have > next-hop-self). > > What about BGP on this peering router doing some auto-aggregation in such a > case? Has this been discussed? It would avoid geographic communities and > would simply follow the BGP topology: if the deaggregates result in the > same > forwarding information than the aggregate just keep the aggregate. Your > routing table would have deaggregates for your own region but only > aggregates > for the other, more distant regions. > > > (2) the problem of ever-growing routing tables and de-aggregation is not > new. > After so many years I'm wondering if the answer is that this cannot be > solved > with BGP/routing alone (?) Otherwise you would have found a solution > meanwhile :-) > And we have the - understandable and growing - needs of Enterprises, who > de-aggregate their PA addresses when they are LIR, or request PI addresses > per location. > > Combining this, should the de-aggregation step not be done with a different > technology? LISP comes to my mind (biased, as I'm working on it) or in > general a "de-aggregation overlay". The overlay would need gateways to the > BGP world and would announce one aggregate prefix only while the > de-aggregate > prefixes would be limited to the particular Enterprise overlay network and > would not show up in BGP. > > > > Regards, Marc > > > > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:16:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > On 16/10/2014 16:47, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >> Growth in IPv6 more specifics was 57% last year... > > > > Here's a graph which shows the percentage of more-specifics between 2003 > > and today from Geoff Huston's web site: > > > > http://goo.gl/QA0xud > > > > Eyeballing the graph, it's not clear where the figure of 57% came from. > In > > terms of trajectories, there doesn't seem to be a major problem either. > > > > Nick > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
