asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) writes: * Folks: There are routers out there that have *already* died due to too * many routes. * * CIDRize your nets. * * Thanks, * --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) Andrew, I'm sorry but it is all well and good to say this, but if I look the amount of clasful routes AS701 is injecting into the Internet it comes out at ~1200 routes (~6% of the total routing table) and then the aggregates from AS701 I get the following. [mature-tony-77] grep AS701 Specific.15Apr94 N 198.84.4.0/22 AS701 198.84.4.0 198.84.7.0 4 0 I see a big saving of 3 routes so far. I do not mean this as a personal gripe at AS701 but the big gains will undoubtedly come from the big ASes. So perhpas we need to chase these down first. Just to be fair here is the status of the "big 10" ASes and their classful (i.e in the tables now) and classles status (in the tables now) as of last night. ASnum Classful Aggs Routes Description potentially saved* AS701 1204 1 3 ALTERNET-AS AS174 1134 0 0 NYSERNET-AS AS372 977 0 0 NSN-AMES-AS AS1717 747 0 0 RENATER AS19 632 0 0 CSS-DOMAIN AS786 590 0 0 The JANET IP Service AS2551 571 3 374 NETCOM-AS AS560 569 0 0 NEARNET-EXT-AS AS1225 538 0 0 CICNET3-AS AS200 525 3 1316 BARRNET-AS * this is done by looking at the aggregates and taking out the more specifics. However, this is the potential routes saved as some of these aggs (i.e. the AS200) would probably not have been fully advertised in the classful world. I hope my point is clear. This top 10 represents about a 1/3 of all the routes we keep worrying about. End story. --Tony.
I'm sorry but it is all well and good to say this, but if I look the amount of clasful routes AS701 is injecting into the Internet it comes out at ~1200 routes (~6% of the total routing table) and then the aggregates from AS701 I get the following.
Yup, AlterNet could remove ~1000 routes & replace them w/ just a few aggregates, *if* we did not have to worry about mixing NSFNET AUP and non-NSFNET AUP nets in the same aggregate. Since we do have to worry about it, its taking me a lot longer - I'm stuck with doing aggregation just by site. For those who say that I should just allocate nets out of two blocks (one block for NSFNET AUP net & one block for non-NSFNET AUP nets), I'm sorry - it just does not work that way. I am not a fortune teller - I can't tell if a site is going to want or qualify for the NSFNET AUP when we assign them some nets. I'll post some numbers in a little while to show what AlterNet could do under various scenarios. --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
participants (2)
-
asp@uunet.uu.net -
Tony Bates