Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing
Dennis Ferguson <dennis@mci.net> Sat, 29 April 1995 18:04 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02443;
29 Apr 95 14:04 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02439;
29 Apr 95 14:04 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07826;
29 Apr 95 14:04 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA25382
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Sat, 29 Apr 1995 13:44:46 -0400
Message-Id: <199504291744.AA25382@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Sat, 29 Apr 1995 13:44:46 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Sat, 29 Apr 1995 13:44:46 -0400
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: Tony Bates <Tony.Bates@ns.mci.net>, bgp@ans.net, enke@ns.mci.net
Subject: Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Apr 1995 22:58:08 EDT."
<199504290311.AA11365@interlock.ans.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 13:44:42 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@mci.net>
Curtis, > In the first draft you "made the assumption" that routers where > forwarding based on local_pref, as path length, and MED for the sake > of argument and as the basis of the examples. Later on you imortalize > this vendor specific hack in statements above, implying that what you > are adding to the standard is just the MPP. In the 3 or 4 places > where you list local_pref, MPP, as path length, and MED would you > please make this more clear with "AS path length for implementations > which use this technique" and explain in each document that this is > something added by one vendor and does not exist as a route selection > criteria in the BGP spec. Then again I don't know of a BGP implementation which has seen even moderate use on the Internet which doesn't use AS path length as a tie breaker (i.e. there is more than one implementation which does this). While the behaviour is a bit under-specified, pragmatically speaking it gives subjectively better results than breaking ties by comparing BGP identifiers, and people rely on it because of this, so I don't think it is too inappropriate to document this as existing practice (if maybe not required behaviour). > approach of prefix based symetrical routing. Please remove "does not > scale" since the scaling properties are those of a radix tree of > log2(n) which is quite good. Instead "requires administrative While a single search of a radix trie takes an amount of work proportional to log(n), the work required to filter n announcements from a neighbour through the radix trie (and to load the radix tree in the first place) goes as n*log(n). This is not so good. Since other operations in a good routing protocol implementation should scale no worse than n*log(n) the overhead this adds will not be insignificant. In any case, I think the document might have been referring to administrative overhead rather than CPU or memory, since in this respect full prefix filtering clearing scales worse than the alternative. Dennis
- Document 3: Symmetric Routing Tony Bates
- Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing Sean Doran
- Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing Dennis Ferguson
- Re: Document 3: Symmetric Routing Enke Chen