20402 routing entries

Fri Apr 15 15:31:04 UTC 1994

Yakov,

> 
> Ref:  Your note of Thu, 14 Apr 94 19:39:42 EDT
> 
> 
> Elise,
> 
> >Yes, we have again started trying to get folks to move to BGP4 -- heck
> >we are still trying to get some folks to move to BGP.
> 
> Trying to get folks to move to BGP4 is a good thing to do and it
> should be encouraged, but given the time constraints this is unlikely
> to be a feasible solution to the problem in the near future.
> 
> >The results are slow in coming...
> 
> It seems that some folks PERSISENTLY missed the point. The clock is
> ticking. The only way to slow down the clock is by reducing the volume
> of routing information (via CIDR). Nothing else is going to stop or
> slow down the clock. The clock cares less whether "the results are slow
> in coming" or why they are "slow in coming". And, by the way, when the
> clock handle hits the mark there is going to be a massive crash.
> 
> Forgive me my bluntness, but given where we are today I just don't see
> any feasible alternatives to a medium-large scale proxy aggregation
> within a next month or so.
> 
> So, given the finite amount of human resources we have, let me suggest
> that the CIDR efforts should be strongly focused on the following two
> FEASIBLE choices:
> 
> (a) make sites who have BGP-4 TODAY to withdraw individual components asap
> 
> (b) make sites who don't have BGP-4 TODAY to arrange proxy aggregation
> 	by their providers (who assumed to have BGP-4) asap (or
> 	the providers will arrange it for them).
> 
> Yakov.
> 

If you refer to the list of the top ten ASs, you can see that large
gains can be attained without being heavy handed. If the top 10,
several of which are BGP4 capable, cidrize the savings would be 
substantial.
          --Elise