IPv4 BGP Table Reduction Analysis - Prefixes Filter by RIRs Minimum Allocations Boundaries

Sun Dec 2 20:19:14 UTC 2007

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
> On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:

> > The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP  
> > table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also  
> > high (around 30%).
> 
> This is an interesting piece of work, and highlights an interesting  
> model (40% table size saving hurts 30% of traffic.)

No, it hits 30% of the *routes*.  I'll make a truly wild guess and say that
those 30% of routes actually only represent 0.3% of the *traffic* for most
providers, and the *only* people who really care are the AS that's doing
the deaggregate...

Eduardo - if you still have the lab setup and netflow/whatever data, is there
any way to tell if any of those 30% routes affected are in any way "high
traffic" sites?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071202/5c8674b1/attachment.sig>