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 easi
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
So, if I get you right, you are saying that edge routers have fewer CPU
requirements, and so ISPs can get away with software routers and don't care
about FIB. At the same time, folks in the middle are saying that in any
event they need to buy high-end routers, and so can afford to buy enough
hardw
IB growth would be welcome
by many.
PF
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:23 PM
> To: Paul Francis
> Cc: Adrian Chadd; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: virtual aggregation in IETF
>
> Paul Francis wro
This thread begs an interesting question: what is the right amount of
granularity for load balance? Folks here are saying that one-entry-per-AS is
too course...an AS wants to influence load on incoming links, and so it needs
multiple entries.
On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that we nee
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
