Subject: RE: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:38 -0500

Randy:

	Like many fine folks, the authors wanted to suggest that
looking at real BGP routing statistics is a good way to improve
your BGP implementation.  BGP statistics depend on the speaker.
An Enterprise BGP speaker might be very different from a Carrier router.

Characterizing the speakers along the lines of Route Views give 
route mixtures (number of prefixes by length, AS path statistics).
Is this statistical analysis of the route mixture, a better
way to describe the bgp routing traffic at any one point
in the Internet?  Is this the issue or where you just
trying to make sure we clarified the default-free statement.

Is the Default-Free routing table phrase used by operators at this point?

Sue

============
4.1 Default Route, Default Free Table, and Full Table

   An individual router's routing table may not necessarily contain a
   default route.  Not having a default route, however, is not
   synonymous with having a full default-free table(DFT).

==> do you count a router which has full routing table and *discard* default
route as default free router or not?  If yes, non-applicable default route
(ie. no real nexthop) should be clarified
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg