nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Growth projections
From: Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog () latency net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:40:44 -0400
On 2009-07-10-12:42:24, Mark Radabaugh <mark () amplex net> wrote: [...]
What projections are you using regarding the default free zone over the next 5 years when picking new hardware?
Geoff Huston, et al provide some useful trending: http://bgp.potaroo.net/index-bgp.html With that said, I've been treating hardware forwarding of 1MM v4 prefixes (or equivalent CAM carving of v6, MPLS, ...) as a minimum requirement for Internet-facing routers with a five-year shelf life. Platforms claiming in the 500-600k range seem prohibitive just tracking current v4 prefix growth, and moreso as v6 adaptation increases and end-users begin to realize that v4 and v6 routing is fundamentally the same, and begin to de-aggregate/advertise v6 space just like they do v4... -a
Current thread:
- BGP Growth projections Mark Radabaugh (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Jon Lewis (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Joel Jaeggli (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Randy Bush (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Adam Rothschild (Jul 10)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Ivan Pepelnjak (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Arie Vayner (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Adam Rothschild (Jul 12)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Ray Burkholder (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Jon Lewis (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Arie Vayner (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Mark Radabaugh (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Justin Shore (Jul 12)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Tomas L. Byrnes (Jul 12)