Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter

Sun Sep 9 13:58:57 UTC 2007

On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:30, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> If BGP is an incremental protocol (which of course, I
> know it is), why doesn't a certain vendor treat it that
> way?
>
>  *cough* BGP Scanner *cough*.

Interesting you should mention this as we are planning to 
test an "improvement" to the BGP Scanner process, BGP 
Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking.

Some notes from the vendor:

"The BGP Support for Next-Hop Address Tracking feature is 
enabled by default when a supporting Cisco IOS software 
image is installed. BGP next-hop address tracking is event 
driven. BGP prefixes are automatically tracked as peering 
sessions are established. Next-hop changes are rapidly 
reported to the BGP routing process as they are updated in 
the RIB. This optimization improves overall BGP convergence 
by reducing the response time to next-hop changes for 
routes installed in the RIB. When a bestpath calculation is 
run in between BGP scanner cycles, only next-hop changes 
are tracked and processed."

How much of an improvement this will make is what we are 
hoping to find out.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070909/78f7985d/attachment.sig>