North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv4 BGP Table Reduction Analysis - Prefixes Filter by RIRs Minimum Allocations Boundaries
On 2 Dec 2007, at 20:19, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:No, it hits 30% of the *routes*.The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also high (around 30%).This is an interesting piece of work, and highlights an interesting model (40% table size saving hurts 30% of traffic.)
Yes, I completely agree, bad terminology indeed.
I'll make a truly wild guess and say that those 30% of routes actually only represent 0.3% of the *traffic* for most providers, and the *only* people who really care are the AS that's doing the deaggregate...
As you nearly point out, it's 100% of the traffic for some networks, and will still be high for other networks. The only way to feel confident that traffic is unaffected by routing table compression is to aggregate sensitively. This is where my "permit one deagg" question came from.