[GROW] FIB Aggregation question

[William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>]

Hi folks,

I couldn't attend but I had two questions about the FIB aggregation
draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-fibaggregation-02):

1. The level 3 and 4 algorithms disregard the implicit default, right?

A destination that falls through the routing table without matching a
route is unreachable. You can think of this in terms as an implicit
route for 0.0.0.0/0 with a next hop of: local process, compose ICMP
unreachable. If I understood the paper, some or all of the address
space within 0.0.0.0/0 which would otherwise hit that implicit default
will be assigned an essentially random next hop, with the system
depending on the TTL to eventually drop the packet.

Have level 3 and level 4 been tested after adding an explicit default
that has to be honored to see what difference it makes in the numbers?


2. If I understand figure 6 correctly, the numbers are the percentage
of original size the FIB reduces to. So, 2008 level 4b, if you started
with a 1000 entry FIB, after aggregation the FIB still contains 363
entries. Did I read it correctly?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004