[c-nsp] Growing BGP tables

[David J. Hughes]

On 01/12/2004, at 1:30 PM, Rodney Dunn wrote:

> Say I get a /16 and a /24 for a prefix from ISPA with
> the same next hop so I wouldn't want to install the
> /24.  But what happens if I get a /16 from ISPB and
> that gets sent to RouterA.  That prefix would have
> a next hop of Router B or ISPB so it would be a different
> prefix and installed in the RIB.  Now the traffic that
> was originally flowing to the /24 would take the backup
> path (due to a longest match lookup) rather than the
> path it would have taken if we had installed the original
> /24. Would that be acceptable?


Having the next hop requirement as optional would be great.  If our 
routers can handle it then we'd keep as much of the existing semantics 
as possible (not withstanding Randy's traffic engineering point which 
is also valid).  If that introduces too many longer length entries than 
we can handle then we flick the switch and drop the longer prefix 
regardless of next hop.  Having that flexibility would be great.

Anyway, what harm can there be in adding one more tuning knob to IOS :-)


David
...