Subject: Re: draft-chen-rr-oscillation-reduce-00.txt

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:02:05 -0600

> >not quite, the proposal by wilfong et. al. actually stops it totally and
> >we can prove it.
> 
> I know it's been said before (and recently) but a reminder just in 
> case:  scaling matters.

Right!  A full IBGP mesh with no heirarchy, or heck, putting the 
routes in an IGP --  would fix it as well, but please, lets not 
forget that the solution has to be deployable and the several 
vendors in my network today aren't exactly begging for more
BGP paths.

-danny

---

From: Anindya Basu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:11:12 -0400

I am actually curious -- have any of you out there with access to real
routing tables applied any of these algorithms (that purport to send
extra routes) and seen how many extra routes are generated? Two
datapoints would be of interest: 
(a) For what percentage of routing prefixes are extra routes generated? 
(b) For those prefixes for which extra routes are generated, how many
extra routes (on an average) are generated per prefix?
This would provide some ideas about extra memory requirements. Maybe we
should actually have some numbers before completely dissing a perfectly
good solution.
-Anindya