[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

[Jason Schiller]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:

> I looked at the policy proposal, and the BGP re-convergence rationale 
> seems to be quite odd or outdated.  This is exactly the reason why 
> e.g., JunOS supports 'routing-options - resolution - rib FOO - import' 
> configuration.  We've used that ourselves for years now and there is 
> no issue with numbering the BGP sessions from the aggregate.  I'd 
> suspect Cisco supports similar configuration, or would easily to be 
> fixed to do so.

Not all vendors currently support this functionality.  Cisco only supports
this functionality in 12.2 T code.  It will take some time for this
functionality to show up in code that is useful to large service
providers. 

I am also in the process of working with Cisco on a draft RFC to
encourage all vendors to support this functionality.

> 
> Internal structure considerations also doesn't apply, as your 
> neighbors and customers can static-route to your internal block unless 
> you implement packet filtering at your borders.  Hence, I cannot see a 
> scenario where packet filtering wouldn't be sufficient.

Large scale ISPs require hardware based packet forwarding to due to the
high pps requirements in some cases as high as 6Mpps.  Currently not all
hardware deployed in all large ISPs has the capability to do line rate
packet filtering on all ingress interfaces. 

___Jason