> b) auto-aggregation within routers from routing-plane to forwarding > plane. Aka: Just don't populate the poor HW tables with all those > non-aggregated prefixes, but calculate the minimum number of > sufficient shorter prefixes.
We did that in year 2000. It is/was called FIB compression. It is useful in routers where a large number of routes shared the same next-hops. What I should really say, it benefits routers with less interfaces because the set is smaller. On the edge, like a PE router with DS3s to 100s of customers (circa year 2000) FIB compression didn't help that much when the customer would advertise non-compressible prefixes. But it IS a useful feature at the expense of clever FIB engineers figuring out how to implement it on their respective company's hardware platform. > E.g.: If we would have a better architecture, including LISP, we would > arguably have a less than inexorable tie... i think. You still have to aggregate locators. Dino _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
