Re: [c-nsp] FIB scale on ASR9001

On 11/11/21 16:33, Lukas Tribus wrote:

> I believe with the amount of RAM we have on those boxes nowadays,
> keeping a copy of everything should be a non-issue.
>
> On the other hand, leveraging route-refresh changes your EBGP
> behaviour, which can trigger remote and local bugs, or, as in your
> case, trigger humans with most likely a little over-dramatic
> monitoring. I won't trust other peoples BGP routers and
> implementations more than I absolutely have to and I don't think my
> time is well spent arguing with other people about their
> underdimensioned control plane CPU, oversensitive CPU load monitoring
> or troubleshooting corner cases in their BGP implementation that
> trigger bugs in route refresh code. And then the need to explain in a
> RFO why your network heavily uses route-refresh which triggered that
> remote bug in the first place, while your competitor didn't change
> anything in their BGP configuration in the last decade, so "they
> didn't have any issue with this, only your network has issues''.
>
> Those are all rabbit holes that I will gladly trade for a little bit
> of RAM usage in a heartbeat.

So some friends and I are working on an RFC draft to fix this:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-rov-no-rr

Comments and contributions are most welcome.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/