Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
mtinka at globaltransit.net
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
> *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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG