As we known, the DFZ RIB size expand rapidly. It may be resolved via router
architecture improvement, such as adding memory chips or compressing RIB. or
via changing routing and addressing scheme, which one will be the long-term
essential approach?
You could try this recent nanog thread for some ideas
Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg02822.html
srs
On Jan 9, 2008 7:55 AM, yangyang. wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we known, the DFZ RIB size expand rapidly. It may be
On Jan 8, 2008 9:25 PM, yangyang. wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we known, the DFZ RIB size expand rapidly. It may be resolved via router
architecture improvement, such as adding memory chips or compressing RIB. or
via changing routing and addressing scheme, which one will be the long-term
Mark Radabaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously you can't keep leaving big 'reserved' holes in your
allocations to downstreams for potential growth.
I've seen RIPE allocate /20s under the proviso that the customer use
the first /23 now and apply to use the rest of the space as they grow.
--
the large quantity of /24 announcements is, I suspect, from comapnies just
large enough to want the benefits of multihoming. You know, 2 t1s on a
small router, and stuff like that..
Bri
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 03:35:19PM -0700, Brian wrote:
the large quantity of /24 announcements is, I suspect, from comapnies just
large enough to want the benefits of multihoming. You know, 2 t1s on a
small router, and stuff like that..
Everyone and their mother says they suspect that,
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
If someone has done an actual study of where these /24s (and probably /23s
too) come from, please point it out. Until then, my money is on clueless
redist connected/statics, large cable/dsl providers who announce a /24 per
Until then, my money is
on clueless
redist connected/statics, large cable/dsl providers who
announce a /24 per
pop/city/whatever to their single transit provider, and
general ignorance.
Why attribute to functionality what can easily be explained by
incomptence. :)
--
Richard A
Now the question is, of that 70% figure, how much of that is
aggregateable?
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Paul Schultz
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: routing table size
On Mon, 29
If the size of the global routing table is really an important issue, why
not start filtering /24 announcements?
I have more of a legal right to use my /20 since I pay ARIN $2K/yr for
it, vs most /24 owners.
Filtering /24s should cut the size of the global routing table back to
1998 levels.
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
If the size of the global routing table is really an important issue, why
not start filtering /24 announcements?
By all means, go ahead. You don't need anyone's permission. Report back with
your results.
I have more of a legal right to use my
Off your network, your legal rights are pretty limited. I (and I'm sure
lots of other admins) block at the /24 boundry. Anything you announce
from /25 to /32 will be ignored on my network. Some providers choose to
block according to RIR allocation sizes. To me, that's not worth the
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a
/24
is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still
thousands of /24 announcements)
If a significant number of providers
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a
/24
is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still
thousands of /24
14 matches
Mail list logo
