Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
adrian at creative.net.au
Sat Sep 8 14:05:40 UTC 2007
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > I do not agree the filters as originally proposed are "too aggressive".
> > Traffic engineering with one's peers is all very well and good, but at
> > the second AS (or overseas) it's not acceptable.
> I think this is the most important point so far. There are a lot
> of providers that think that their announcements need to be global
> to manage link/load balancing with their peers/upstreams. Proper use
> of no-export (or similar) on the more specifics and the aggregate
> being sent out will reduce the global noise significantly.
> Perhaps some of the providers to these networks will nudge them
> a bit more to use proper techniques.
Maybe some publicly documented case studies would be nice? Or is that
all just too "topic secret" to tell your competitors how to do?
That said, my second-to-last employer wouldn't actually handle BGP communities
that they documented they'd accept.. with that kind of consistency are you
surprised that the slightly-less-than-"nanog"-cluey-netadmins crowd of
network administrators don't bother with BGP juju and stick to what works?
(And no, they still don't accept the communities they document they would; nor
tag traffic with DSCP bits they documented they would. Fun times.)
More information about the NANOG