RE: virtual aggregation in IETF

[Paul Francis <francis () cs cornell edu>]

Certainly in principle it can, though that is not in the current proposal.
The basic idea is to suppress installing routes into the FIB when there is a
"virtual aggregate" that you can tunnel to instead.

I remember we discussed this in San Jose NANOG, but I forget the details.
Can you remind me?

PF


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Durand [mailto:alain_durand () cable comcast com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:13 AM
> To: Paul Francis; nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: virtual aggregation in IETF
>
> Paul,
>
> Can this proposal be applied to IS-IS (or other IGP) as well as BGP?
>
>    - Alain.
>
>
> On 7/20/08 8:46 AM, "Paul Francis" <francis () cs cornell edu> wrote:
>
> > Gang,
> >
> > I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual
> aggregation
> > (VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va-
> 00.txt).
> > This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to
> control
> > the size of their FIBs, shrinking them by 5x or 10x quite easily.
> This would
> > extend the lifetime of routers that are constrained by FIB size.
> >
> > There has been a lively discussion of this on the IDR mailing list,
> including
> > a suggestion that FIB reduction is more important for lower tier ISPs
> (tier
> > 2, tier 3...) than for tier 1 ISPs.  Unfortunately I don't think that
> people
> > from smaller ISPs pay much attention to the IDR mailing list, so they
> are not
> > being represented in this discussion.
> >
> > So I'm looking for input from folks who think that FIB reduction
> helps them,
> > so as to better understand their requirements.
> >
> > Any help is much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > PF