Certainly in principle it can, though that is not in the current proposal. The basic idea is to suppress installing routes into the FIB when there is a "virtual aggregate" that you can tunnel to instead.
I remember we discussed this in San Jose NANOG, but I forget the details. Can you remind me? PF > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Durand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:13 AM > To: Paul Francis; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: virtual aggregation in IETF > > Paul, > > Can this proposal be applied to IS-IS (or other IGP) as well as BGP? > > - Alain. > > > On 7/20/08 8:46 AM, "Paul Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gang, > > > > I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual > aggregation > > (VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va- > 00.txt). > > This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to > control > > the size of their FIBs, shrinking them by 5x or 10x quite easily. > This would > > extend the lifetime of routers that are constrained by FIB size. > > > > There has been a lively discussion of this on the IDR mailing list, > including > > a suggestion that FIB reduction is more important for lower tier ISPs > (tier > > 2, tier 3...) than for tier 1 ISPs. Unfortunately I don't think that > people > > from smaller ISPs pay much attention to the IDR mailing list, so they > are not > > being represented in this discussion. > > > > So I'm looking for input from folks who think that FIB reduction > helps them, > > so as to better understand their requirements. > > > > Any help is much appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > > > PF > > > > > > >
