Hi Dino,
>> As always, it’s a trade-off. In this case, do you want to optimize your >> routing resources or a small amount of bandwidth. You can either carry more >> specifics or drop P.4 traffic. IMHO, that’s an easy call. > > Not at all clear that its a small amount of bandwidth. Other than a DoS attack, why would it be significant? >>>>> Another question is, if all more-specfics are not stored (due to major >>>>> link failure), is the aggregate withdrawn from the routing system. That >>>>> is, if you want less route flapping, you may just want to keep P >>>>> advertised. That optimizes FIB add/delete entropy everywhere that wants >>>>> to store P. I would rather have hardware routers drop packets fast, then >>>>> to have route oscillation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, if ISP B isn’t getting all of the more specifics and continues to >>>> aggregate, it could attract traffic that it can’t deliver. Presumably this >>>> is a transient until it can get the more specifics. >>> >>> So what is your conclusion? Is your draft saying to optimize traffic >>> engineering or saving routing table space? Or simply documenting the >>> tradeoffs? >> >> >> I’m saying do both: aggregate at the right place and it’s a win-win. But >> figuring out where to aggregate does require some thought. > > Definitely agree. So the draft is supposed to help people think about it. :) Do you think it’s worth of WG adoption? T _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
