Aggregation & path information [was: 200K prefixes - Weekly Routing Table Report]

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at
Sat Oct 14 16:50:54 UTC 2006

On Oct 14, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> patrick at ("Patrick W. Gilmore") writes:
>> Obviously the table contains kruft.  But I know we could not shrink
>> it to 109K prefixes without losing something from where I sit.  Are
>> you sure there's no additional path info?
> before we could be sure that an aggregation proposal was  
> nondestructive,
> we'd have to model it from where a lot of people sit, not just  
> patrick.

I do believe that was the point of my second & third sentence.

> on the one hand this seems to be a useful endeavour.  in addition to
> measuring the total number of routes, we probably ought to measure the
> number of non-TE-related routes, and focus our attention on those  
> routes
> and also the ratio ("global TE cost borne by the routing system.")

I'm not sure you could separate "TE routes" from "$FOO routes"  
externally.  Unless you classify everything that doesn't go the way - 
you- think it should go as "TE".  (Possibly a valid assumption.)

> on the other hand i dispair of finding a set of observation posts and
> metrics that will abstract TE out of the observed routes in a way that
> wouldn't be seen as controversial or useless by most of the community.

Since we are discussing putting pressure on people who do stupid  
thing, not shooting them in the head, we do not need to be 100%  
accurate.  A list of provider who most likely are filling the table,  
and then allowing people to filter, prod, annoy, e-mail, call, etc.,  
those providers is enough.  Right now we just have "these people  
could -theoretically- aggregate", without actually knowing if path  
info is lost.


More information about the NANOG mailing list