inal Message-
> From: Jean-François Mezei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:21 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
>
> Paul Francis wrote:
>
> > AS, or even dozens. So I'm curious
Paul Francis wrote:
> AS, or even dozens. So I'm curious...if we could wave a magic wand and
> control the exact number of entries any AS needs to advertise, what would
> folks consider to be roughly the right number of entries?
Wouldn't this greatly depend on the span/breath of your network ? I
On Mon, September 8, 2008 09:46, Scott Brim wrote:
> Also, ASNs are not
> aggregatable so we can't use them to represent a large number of
> independently routed networks.
Scott,
I'm not sure an Autonomous System would want to be aggregated. By its
nature it is capable of having arbitrary connec
>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:31 PM
>To: Ricardo Oliveira; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
>
>
>This thread begs an interesting question: what
om: Ricardo Oliveira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
>
> Topological aggregation based on ASN is often too course
> granularity, see this paper:
> http://www.cs.u
Topological aggregation based on ASN is often too course granularity,
see this paper:
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf
specifically Fig4 is a good example, and sec 4C.
Cheers,
--Ricardo
On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:20 AM, yangyang. wang wrote:
Hi, everyone:
For routing scalabili
If I understand you right, what you're suggesting is that, in place of a
MED or a localpref, I deploy a layer 2 filter on all of my devices for
every prefix I want to touch the policy for at a level more granular
than AS. This does not improve the scalability of BGP, it destroys that
scalability
Thank you, Scott.
TE is a key reason for using specific prefixes. I think that most TEs are
deployed in intra-domain, and the inter-domain TEs applied to downstream AS
multihomed to many different upstream ASes could be made thru AS number
based aggregation. The TE between two ASes with many links
On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:46 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from yangyang. wang on Mon, Sep 08, 2008 09:20:38PM +0800:
Hi, everyone:
For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not
deploy AS
number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the
shortest
paths are cal
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM, yangyang. wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, everyone:
>>
>> For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
>> number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
>> paths are calculated
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM, yangyang. wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, everyone:
>
> For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
> number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
> paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. T
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM, yangyang. wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
> number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
> paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The prefixes in the
Excerpts from yangyang. wang on Mon, Sep 08, 2008 09:20:38PM +0800:
> Hi, everyone:
>
> For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
> number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
> paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The p
On 9/09/2008, at 1:20 AM, yangyang. wang wrote:
Hi, everyone:
For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not
deploy AS
number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the
shortest
paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The prefixes in
the same
A
14 matches
Mail list logo
