On 01/11/2014 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes,
>>> we need peer to peer negotiation, as in "I need 3 /64s that I
>>> don't have, do you have any spare ones for me?" Maybe it's
>>> badly explained but that is the whole point of our use case.
>> Sure, you can approach it as a sort of flood fill algorithm that tries to
>> optimize for route aggregation, but copes if that optimization doesn't pan
>> out.
>>
> Do we have use cases in which the number of links is so large that
> unaggregated routing tables will be a problem?
Not that I'm aware of. In the case of a carrier, the prefix will be aggregated
anyway when it is announced to peer carriers, and possibly aggregated
regionally anyway if it's a very large carrier. Of course, there will be
a scaling limit and that should be a consideration in the design.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
