nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing meltdown
From: kwe () 6SigmaNets com (Kent W. England)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:47:10 -0800
At 2:08 PM 8/11/95, Paul A Vixie wrote:
I clearly think that colocated workstations are better than route processors inside the routers themselves. I'm less certain that they are better than route servers and a unified/recursive/realtime RADB. I'm not sure at all that any interconnect can, should, or ever shall require this kind of dual- routing setup for its members. In other words, why are we discussing this?
I like the idea of workstation-based route processors over forwarding/routing engines because it decouples the complex route processing s/w environment from the forwarding function. The economics of complex route processing don't match the economics of big honking routers and workstations are a better development environment. The reason to talk about it here is that if we are to move forward in this direction we need a simple exchange protocol between route server and forwarding engine to make this happen. --Kent
Current thread:
- Re: routing meltdown, (continued)
- Re: routing meltdown Yakov Rekhter (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)