Re: [Anima] [homenet] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

A very large carrier is normally organizing its network into multiple ASes. It is naturely aggregated when an AS announced its prefix(es). Complete routing table with in an AS should not be a scaling problem. Because it is not possible for all routers have complete routing table, so the path within an AS may not always be perfect. But reachability would not be in any doubts.

Sheng
________________________________________
From: homenet [homenet-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Brian E Carpenter [brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 November 2014 8:19
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: Markus Stenberg; Ted Lemon; Benoit Claise; homenet@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org; Sheng Jiang
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter      v15

On 01/11/2014 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet