:15 PM PST
> To: , "Tony Li"
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-li-int-aggregation-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tony Li, and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-li-int-aggregation
> Revision: 00
> Title:
Hi Toerless,
> 1. Is there any specific reason to bring this up now, e.g.: urgency to
> avoid running out of headroom or the like ? Would be good to add that
> to the text for motivation. right now it reads very architectural.
Yes. My hair is turning gray. AFAICT, this is not written down elsew
> On Feb 25, 2022, at 9:38 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> I just ran against control plane resource limitations in products way more
> often during the decades than i felt necessary knowing what control plane
> performane would be possible with appropriately scaled CPU/memory.
Well, here’s t
soon,
Tony
> On Jan 31, 2022, at 5:35 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>
>
> FYI…
>
> This is a proposal for an additional way of adding aggregation and improving
> routing efficiency.
>
> Tony
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: intern
Dino,
Thanks for the question.
> When a provider proxy aggregates, it means they will summarized more specific
> routes they have stored in their routing table. Like ISP-A above has routes
> P.1, P.2, and P.3. When ISP-A advertises a P prefix, it is indicating it can
> reach all more specific
Hi Dino,
>>> So here are the options:
>>>
>>> (1) ISP-A advertises P to ISP-B (and may also advertise more specifics to
>>> other peers for policy reasons).
>>> (2) ISP-A advertises P.1, P.2, and P.3 to ISP-B and ISP-B advertises P to
>>> its peers.
>>>
>>> The questions is *where is the best
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
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you think it’s worth of WG adoption?
>
> I think so yes.
Thank you Dino.
Do others concur? The chairs want to see some indication of interest.
T
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@
here.
If we make the assumption that renumbering WILL be easy (and make it come to
pass), then it's reasonable to argue that renumbering into a larger prefix is
easy and thus we can be more conservative in initial site addressing.
Regards,
Tony Li, Ph.D.
Cisco F
Hi Eric,
> The second is that they can differentiate themselves by offering
> address allocation sizes that do not align well with other providers, in
> an attempt to lock-in customers who will find that they can anticipate
> administrative head-aches and extra costs if they ever decide th
I’ve reviewed -02 and support it. This seems like a simple and useful
improvement.
T
> On Nov 21, 2024, at 8:19 AM, Ron Bonica - rbonica=40juniper.net at
> dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> I have just posted a new version of the draft to address your comment.
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
