Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers
Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net> Sat, 07 July 2007 15:14 UTC
Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1I7Byy-0003sl-Ot; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 11:14:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7Byx-0003kb-Og
for ram@iab.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 11:13:59 -0400
Received: from smtpb.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7Byt-0005zi-F1
for ram@iab.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 11:13:59 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
by smtpb.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
07 Jul 2007 08:13:54 -0700
Received: from [172.26.250.99] ([172.26.250.99])
by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l67FDmO10204;
Sat, 7 Jul 2007 08:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from raszuk@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <468FADAA.60405@juniper.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:13:46 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers
References: <cde.132c3069.33c0f466@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <cde.132c3069.33c0f466@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
Cc: rw@firstpr.com.au, ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: raszuk@juniper.net
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>,
<mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>,
<mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org
Hello Heiner, > BGP needs to be replaced, not repaired. /* I would recommend to start replacing it today and the best place to start is your own AS. */ Seriously even if we would have a new protocol to replace BGP call it PGB all defined and it's RFC ready it will take years to implement and years^years to deploy. I would therefor recommend not to cross the option to repair BGP. > A 200 k FIB should be proof > enough that this is the wrong way to go. 2k should be sufficient for a > 100 times bigger internet. It's the basic concept of BGP which is > totally wrong. Number of FIB entires have nothing to do with the protocol. Please observe that BGP uses recursion. Most often it recurses to an IGP next hop, but it can also recurse to BGP itself then to IGP or something else. We could introduce hierarchy with BGP protocol as is without any changes to the protocol or existing and deployed routers. Your FIB could shrink tomorrow if we would have an agreement between operators to use tunneling for forwarding. I think this is the biggest obstacle today. We don't have a way to tunnel interdomain. I see all proposals today are moving the issue and if during such move the handling of 10^7-10^9 number of prefixes get's solved it would only benefit everyone. I am quite convinced that if we would just do two steps: * Mark BGP next hops with some community * Do not change nhs on EBGP boundaries So the recursion would be: Dst -> BGP NH -> IGP NH to BGP NH Encapsulation end point would be to original BGP NH. All destinations would not be present in all transit ASBRs as long as the LTR was there somewhere on the packet's way. The FIB size in most transit ASBR routers would shrink immediately. I am assuming that we are not worrying about P routers which can be BGP free today. > Other, secondary parts (Hello's etc.) can be re-used of course. I wouldn't be so convinced about that one actually. Cheers, R. _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
- [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers HeinerHummel
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Chris L. Morrow
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Eliot Lear
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Ted Seely
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Chris L. Morrow
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Roland Dobbins
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Ricardo V. Oliveira
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Tony Li
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Chris L. Morrow
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Robin Whittle
- [RAM] Re: Number of DFZ routers Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [RAM] Re: Number of DFZ routers Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Simon Leinen
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Chris L. Morrow
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Simon Leinen
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Chris L. Morrow
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers - radical improve⦠Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers HeinerHummel
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Noel Chiappa
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Robert Raszuk
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers HeinerHummel
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers HeinerHummel
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers Noel Chiappa
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers HeinerHummel
- [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Ved Kafle
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Tony Li
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Loa Andersson
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Tony Li
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Tony Li
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Loa Andersson
- Re: [RAM] Meeting at IETF-69? Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [RAM] Number of DFZ routers - radical improve⦠Iljitsch van Beijnum