nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing meltdown
From: Barney Wolff <barney () databus com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 95 11:22 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:41:35 -0700 From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com> N**2 BGP4 sessions are bad for likely values of N (100, maybe.) That won't change just because we've got a 1GB-RAM DEC Alpha with a 300MHz processor instead of a Cisco to do our route processing. N**2 BGP4 sessions is a bad design no matter what you're implementing it with. In that sense, your idea is not "viable" since it doesn't solve some of the real problems coming up.
Is N**2 sessions on N hosts really so bad? Am I missing something here? Since only the hosts are aware of the sessions, I don't see N**2 as a problem. Is the rate of updates dependent on the number of peers, or on the rate of real changes in the real networks? Barney Wolff <barney () databus com>
Current thread:
- Re: routing meltdown, (continued)
- Re: routing meltdown Curtis Villamizar (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Jerry Scharf (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Jon Zeeff (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Yakov Rekhter (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Jon Zeeff (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Vadim Antonov (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Tim Bass (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Dave Siegel (Aug 13)
- Re: routing meltdown Tim Bass (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Sean Doran (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Hans-Werner Braun (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Scott Bradner (Aug 11)
- Re: routing meltdown Barney Wolff (Aug 12)
- Re: routing meltdown Hank Nussbacher (Aug 12)
- Re: routing meltdown Sean Doran (Aug 13)
- Re: routing meltdown Kent W. England (Aug 15)