Route table growth and hardware to the filter

Pekka Savola pekkas at
Fri Sep 21 14:18:56 UTC 2007

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, I have brought myself to three options:
>> Has the option of using default route(s) occurred to you?
> welcome to v6.  we forgot to sort out routing, so just don't do it.
> you're kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding but maybe we're talking about a different thing 
(you may have a more generalized network in mind).

The way I see it, a network which is considering "Juniper M7i or Cisco 
7300 plus a couple of switches" as an option does not _need_ 220K IPv4 
routes in its routing table.  Whether it has 150K, 40K (Hi Simon!) or 
5K shouldn't matter that much from the functionality perspective.

If we still disagree, it might be interesting to hear why filtered BGP 
feeds from upstream and appropriately placed default routes to cover 
the holes wouldn't provide a functionally and operationally an 
equivalent solution?

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

More information about the NANOG mailing list