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

Sun Sep 9 19:10:39 UTC 2007

> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu on behalf of Jared Mauch
> Sent: Sat 9/8/2007 8:17 AM
> To: William Allen Simpson
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
>
>
>         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.
>

Could a partial solution to this problem be something as simple as the 
routing vendors implementing something that by default analyzes the 
routes that you're announcing to your neighbors and automatically flags 
the more specifics that are covered by an identical larger aggregate with 
no-export?  Rather than relying on the announcing network to make an 
effort to use no-export, make it a default that can be turned off if the 
need arises.  

If the cause of alot of this garbage is indeed caused by cluelessness or 
apathy, it seems like this would help.  If people are too lazy or lacking 
the knowledge to fix what they're announcing, they're likely too lazy or 
lacking the knowledge to disable a default setting that flags extra 
unnecessary routes with no-export.

Forrest