Danny, I agree with you. It is not ok to say "we have to solve this inter-domain scalability problem and don't care/ don't want to mingle it with any intra-domain scalability problem". You hilight another big point of TARA being an architecture which doesn't depend on/doesn't need user reachability information dissemination at all - neither of inter-domain prefixes nor of intra-domain prefixes. Its advantages of a much faster next-hop look-up will result in a much faster forwarding for the entire path, if the same mechanism is applied from the ingress intra-domain router to the egress-intra-domain router. Heiner In einer eMail vom 12.01.2009 16:08:08 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
On Jan 6, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > > I know that the internal tables are always a pain, but since we have > to deal > with the global issues, the internal, private growth (self- > inflicted ;-) has > to necessarily be out of scope for RRG. That's quite odd to me, considering by today's definitions "internal [BGP] tables" are where the routing scalability and stability are it's worst - today, and unquestionably, the first place things will break IF/WHEN they do, as a result of an inter-domain routing protocol architecture that forces either full-mesh or hierarchies such as route reflection that themselves introduce additional paths and state in the network (even with implicit aggregation effects). And they're not going to break because of a 100k unique internal-only routes, they're going to break because of an order or magnitude or more paths (and all of their overhead) - paths introduced as a result of "global issues" and solutions that focus on solely minimizing DFZ size, rather than looking at where the problem is actually worst - today. -danny _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
