RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system

["Susan Hares" <skh () nexthop com>]

Elmer:

You are not cooking for the routing table (hence loss of information).
You are cooking for the forwarding entries in the line cards..

As to architectural discussion, I believe the IRTF is publishing work
from
On NG architecture.  I'll be glad to send you pointers.  2 panels of
routing experts suggested algorithms and changes.   That will tell you
some of the things that were thought of.  

Sue


-----Original Message-----
From: Elmar K. Bins [mailto:elmi () 4ever de] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:31 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system

Susasn,

> Using the compression ("cooking") per router can provide one level of
> abstraction [reduction of prefix space] at router.  So cooking down
your
> Large number of routes to a "minimum" set of routes can provide some
> leverage against the prefix growth.

By cooking down the prefixes you unfortunately lose topology information
which might be a bad thing, and at the same moment disrespect the site's
wish to how it would like to be routed. Another bad thing, if you think
of companies/sites paying for the entire network in the long run.

Apart from that, IMHO cooking down the prefixes only buys time, but does
not solve the problem. More people will multihome, and with the current
mechanisms and routing cloud, they have to do it by injecting prefixes.

I'm not sure whether this hasn't long become an architectural question
and should be moved to the (new) IETF arch list. Opinions?

Yours,
        Elmi.

PS: Btw, anyone can give me a hint on where to discuss new ideas for
    e.g. routing schemes (and finding out whether it's an old idea)?
   

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu
substituieren."
                          (PLemken,
<bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 () ID-31 news uni-berlin de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[
ELMI-RIPE ]---