[j-nsp] full table?

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Keegan,

> Is it always necessary to take in a full table?  Why or why not?  In light
> of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing.  This question is
> understandably subjective.  We have datacenters with no more than three
> upstreams.  We would obviously have to have a few copies of the table for
> customers that want to receive it from us, but I'm curious if it is still
> necessary to have a full table advertised from every peering.  Several ISP's
> will allow you to filter everything longer than say /20 and then receive a
> default.  Just curious what others think and if anyone is doing this.

I am just curious if your question is driven by issue of handling full 
table in the control plane or if the issue is with RIB and FIB.

If the issue is with full table control plane on the edge then one could 
explore more ebgp multihop advertisements from some box/reflector behind 
the edge. Just FYI full table of 450K nets and 800K paths (2:1 ratio) 
should consume around 250 MB of RAM (including BGP idle footprint).

If the issue is with boxes actually melting in RIB and FIBs then I may 
have an easy, automated and operationally friendly solution for that. In 
my ex-cisco life I have invented simple-va which with single knob only 
puts from BGP to RIB and FIB what is necessary. 100% correctness to pick 
what is necessary is assured. Details could be found here: 
draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-04. So far quite a few operators liked it !

Cheers,
R.