I love that we can't even get a full week into the new year without beating the
"let's overhaul BGP" drum. Some things never change. <3
Chris
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On
Behalf Of Joe Maimon
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 5:51 PM
To: Mel Beckman ; Mike Hammett
Cc: NANOG
And here is another interesting approach Ive left open in my browser
window for who knows how long
https://inog.net/files/iNOG14v_oliver_sourcerouting.pdf
The problem with BGP is that local actors can exact global costs
trivially by consuming as many routing slots as they can get away with,
Mike,
Thanks for that useful example. On a side note, Netflix is a thorn in all our
sides :) You could put a localpref filter route to override the default for
Netflix prefixes, but this impacts resilience. Since you peer with Netflix, I
suspect we probably agree that Netflix’s ideas on
This is not a green grass problem space.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/ios-nx-os-software/performance-routing-pfr/index.html
And you could probably envision how you could create your own internal
scheme of route reflectors/servers, community tags, probers and updaters
to achieve
Looking to consult with someone who has in depth knowledge and
experience with the way things work over in the corner, trying to round
the bases on a solution and not hit it out of the ballpark.
Contact direct for less public details and arrangements, of course
anything of legit public
I hesitated to get too specific in examples because someone is going to drag
the conversation into the weeds.
Let's take the the Dallas - New Orleans - Atlanta example where I have a
connection from New Orleans to Dallas and a connection from New Orleans to
Atlanta.
Let's say I peer with
Mike,
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “suboptimal“ routing. Even though
the Internet uses AS path length for routing, many of those path lengths are
bogus, and don’t really represent any kind of path performance value. For
example, a single AS might hide many hops in an MPLS
I guess I wasn't around for those days.
As far as running out, again, assuming the tooling works correctly, I'd think
to target fewer routes than you could hold. Maybe 1k routes is all one would
need to get a significant percent of the traffic. A lot of room to mess up if
you can hold 100k,
Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm not concerned with which technology or buzzword gets the job done,
only that the job is done.
Looking briefly at the couple of things out there, they're evaluating
the top X prefixes in terms of traffic reported by s-flow, where X is
the number I define, and
Very true.
https://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp%2dactive%2etxt=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29=step
"big enough" equipment from not that long ago couldn't carry a full table today
(or tomorrow).
-
Lots of 1M tcam fib limits in older gear...
So yeah, its the same problem, bigger numbers and still not solved in
any sort of non-painful or expensive way.
I think Ill explore the google path and paper on it again.
Joe
Mike Hammett wrote:
Then please bless the world with the right way.
I'm not concerned with which technology or buzzword gets the job done, only
that the job is done.
Communities certainly work. I could tag each of my peers (not a bad practice in
the first place) with a different community, or set of communities and only
allow say non-route server peers and
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 11:18 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Initially, my thought was to use community filtering to push just IXes,
> customers, and defaults throughout the network, but that's obviously still
> sub-optimal.
>
> I'd be surprised if a last mile network had a ton of traffic going to any
BGP knows nothing about the importance of a given prefix.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Mel Beckman"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "Tom Beecher" , "NANOG"
Sent: Thursday, January 5,
Mike,
Your original question was:
“Given that the project was abandoned six years ago, are there any other
efforts with a similar goal (more intelligently placing routes into FIBs of
low-FIB capacity devices?”
People then, respectfully, tried to clarify your request or explain why placing
Initially, my thought was to use community filtering to push just IXes,
customers, and defaults throughout the network, but that's obviously still
sub-optimal.
I'd be surprised if a last mile network had a ton of traffic going to any more
than a few hundred prefixes.
-
Mike Hammett
Then please bless the world with the right way.
You acknowledge that not every router in a network needs to be fully DFZ
capable, but then crap on my desire to have more than a default route in one.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The
>
> "The right tool for the job" gets into a religious argument in assuming
> that one's way to do the job is the only reasonable way to do the job
I disagree that it's religious. I completely agree there are locations in
networks that having full DFZ capable routers doesn't make technical or
"The right tool for the job" gets into a religious argument in assuming that
one's way to do the job is the only reasonable way to do the job.
Large networks historically have a very poor (IMO) model of gigantic iron in a
few locations, which results in sub-optimal routing for the rest of
19 matches
Mail list logo
