Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

On 29 April 2016 at 22:25, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > With two uplinks that is highly unlikely to the point of being > impossible. > > There is no topology change upstream that can cause a situation where it > is > > not possible to do a high degree of

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

On 29 April 2016 at 13:25, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> The more paths you receive from different sources, the more likely it >> is that this list of 120k "superfluous" prefixes will converge >> towards zero. > > Agreed that small numbers of paths are most unlikely to create the >

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

Baldur Norddahl wrote: > With two uplinks that is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible. > There is no topology change upstream that can cause a situation where it is > not possible to do a high degree of aggregation of the full default free > routing table before loading it in the FIB.

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

Den 29. apr. 2016 15.31 skrev "Nick Hilliard" : > > Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > > I'm curious about specific failure modes that can result from this, if > > anyone can share examples/experience with it. > > The canonical pathological case is where the deaggregated prefixes are >

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

Just to be clear, this isn't (to my knowledge) something that Arista is doing and so the risk described doesn't affect the products that were discussed on that thread. On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > > I'm curious about specific

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > I'm curious about specific failure modes that can result from this, if > anyone can share examples/experience with it. The canonical pathological case is where the deaggregated prefixes are affected by upstream topology changes and suddenly your optimisations which saved

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

On 2016-04-29 12:48, Nick Hilliard wrote: Alain Hebert wrote: PS: "Superfluous" is a nice way to say that the best path of a subnet is the same as his supernet. ... from the point of view of the paths that you see, which is to say two egress paths. Someone else on the internet may have a

Re: Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

Alain Hebert wrote: > PS: "Superfluous" is a nice way to say that the best path of a > subnet is the same as his supernet. ... from the point of view of the paths that you see, which is to say two egress paths. Someone else on the internet may have a different set of bgp views which will

Friday's Random Comment - About: Arista and FIB/RIB's

While following that Arista chat... That reminded me of that little afternoon project years ago. So I decided to find new hamsters, fire up that VM, refresh the DB's and from the view point of a tiny 7206VXR/G1 with 2 T3 peers... The amount of superfluous subnet advertisement drop to