nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:57:33 +0900
Jon Lewis wrote:
Yeah, but in another couple years we'll breach the 1M mark and everybody will have fresh routers with lots of TCAM for a while. If that were the only issue, it'd be a matter of timing the change well.Everybody will need them. Not all will get (or be able to get) them.
Wrong. For /24, direct look up of 16M entry SRAM is enough. Updating 64K entries for /8 should not be a problem, though you may also have 64K entry SRAM for /16. In addition, for small number of local smaller-than-/24 prefixes, another lookup of radix tree by a smaller SRAM (with 64K entry, we can subdivide 256 /24 into /32) should be possible. But, there is no need for costly and power wasting TCAM. So far, I ignore IPv6, of course. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Justin Wilson (Lists) (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Ian Chilton (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- RE: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Robert McKay (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? John Levine (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Lars Prehn (Jan 25)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 27)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Donald Eastlake (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)