On Mar 19, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> We've been saying "unconstrained growth bad" for BGP for years. Presumably 
> we're not all insane. Where is the science?

I think there is a lot of fear around this topic.  I'm waiting to see the great 
meltdown at 512k fib entries in networks.  We saw the same  at 128k and 256k 
with some platforms.  The impact on 512k will be just as great if not larger, 
but also very transient.  

I've observed a great deal of asymmetrical BGP participants in recent years.  
They send a set of routes, sometimes small for their own global good, but take 
only on-net or default routes from their providers.

There is also the fact that many traffic-engineering techniques are quite 
coarse due to the protocol design.  The days of using prepending and 
aggregation/deaggregation are still with us, even when more sophisticated 
methods (communities, etc..) exist.  I'm starting to decide that the real issue 
is that most people just can't route (including some major networks).  The 
system works because the broken part gets greased, but there are a lot of 
cosmetic and non-cosmetic defects that linger because people don't realize they 
are there or are a problem.  If you want data on that, including my 
minimalistic "faux" science, there is plenty to be had.

- Jared

Reply via email to