nanog mailing list archives
RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey.
From: "Ross Callon" <rcallon () juniper net>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:32:10 -0400
In another mailing list, someone has asserted that "noone believes router vendors who say [they can support 2M routes today and 10M with
no change in technology]".
Can you tell us who said this on which email list?
Or perhaps more accurately, the router vendors claiming this are being a bit disingenuous in that while it is possible routers can handle this many static routes, they'll quickly fall down if they were subjected to real world dynamic conditions ISPs would see if you extrapolate routing flux in today's tables up to (say) 2M routes.
I remember quite clearly at a much earlier meeting the statement that "obviously the Internet will keel over dead if the top level IP routing table reaches 10,000 entries" (this is not an exact quote, but the "10,000" limit was what was stated at the time). At the time no one challenged this observation, although at the time I did wonder why someone thought that this was obviously true. Of course this statement has been obviously false for quite a few years. Sadly, I don't recall whether this statement was made at a very early IETF, or at a GADS (gateway algorithms and data structures) meeting, which was the group that preceded the IETF ("gateway" was an early word for "router"). Of course, over the years there have been improvements in both implementations and protocols to make the growth from "less than 10,000" to "more than 200,000" work okay. I don't think that anyone is expecting that today's routers will work with 10,000,000 top level Internet routes without any change at all in any aspect of the implementation. Ross
Current thread:
- "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. David Conrad (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. William Herrin (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Steven M. Bellovin (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. David W. Hankins (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. John A. Kilpatrick (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Adrian Chadd (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Simon Leinen (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Adrian Chadd (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Adrian Chadd (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. William Herrin (Aug 25)
- RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Ross Callon (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. David Conrad (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Rob Evans (Aug 28)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. bmanning (Aug 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Brandon Butterworth (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Randy Bush (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Jared Mauch (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Deepak Jain (Aug 25)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Florian Weimer (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Deepak Jain (Aug 26)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Eric Gauthier (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Randy Bush (Aug 25)