nanog mailing list archives
Re: multi-homing fixes
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa () samurai sfo dead-dog com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:27:16 -0700
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:50:38PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
SMP systems and multi-ported RAM is a good enough stop-gap. If I didn't like non-deterministic systems, I might suggest Echelon technologies (hardware-based neural nets).
Nothing is a good enough stop-gap while things continue to grow at this rate. Encouraging people to throw an extra hamster onto the wheel does not solve the problem for long at all, and encourages more waste of existing resources.
I've read that and largely agree. The hardware approach was only meant to buy time, while the geniuses at the IETF find a better approach. What I don't agree on, and am amazed to see, the admission that they don't know at what point the convergeince problem becomes intractible. Or even, if it does... that sounds more like a fundimental lack of understanding of the algorithm itself.
CIDR was only meant to buy time. We've bought our time, and we still don't have a solution. If it were that easy, people would be doing it. Buying more time in small increments is not necessarily in our interests. Continuing to pile announcements onto this mess, looking for the prefix that breaks the camel's back, is not a good idea until you -have- a solution.
In the mid-80's, I worked on an OCR problem, involving a add-on 80186 processor card. We used a brute-force solution. It as too slow on the 8 MHz CPU. Years later, with the advent of faster hardware, the product was released. It's funny that the market timing was just about perfect. It gave that company a huge head start, when the market turned hot. It is alright to target performance/capacity solutions expected to be present at the time of product release (about 5-years from now). In fact, that's about the only way I see the problem getting solved.
Precisely -- and this /doesn't work/ if you make the existing problem worse during those intervening 5 years. --msa
Current thread:
- RE: multi-homing fixes, (continued)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 29)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Clayton Fiske (Aug 29)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 29)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Henry Yen (Aug 24)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David Schwartz (Aug 24)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David Schwartz (Aug 24)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Majdi S. Abbas (Aug 24)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Vijay Gill (Aug 24)
- RE: multi-homing fixes jmalcolm (Aug 24)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Alex Bligh (Aug 24)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Christopher A. Woodfield (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Rafi Sadowsky (Aug 27)