nanog mailing list archives
RE: genuity - any good?
From: "David Luyer" <david () luyer net>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:44:02 +1000
I think the argument is not about route filtering - it is the implementation method. Genuity uses ip extended access-lists. Everyone else uses prefix-lists. To a purist, the former is more granular, but performs poorly because it is a linked list implementation. The later, while less granular, performs faster by using a trie.
IOS 12.0S (and derivatives) are popular with ISPs (at least those who use Ciscos), and support 'access-list compiled', making access-lists likely to be around the same speed as prefix lists; they just take up RAM (one access list I use takes 10Mb of RAM once compiled). extended access lists still permit flexibility, ie, the /16 permitted only: access-list 111 permit ip host 192.168.0.0 host 255.255.0.0 becomes to permit all /16 thru /24 under that: access-list 111 permit ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.0 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.0 (might look less clear than a prefix list when you start wanting to let them permit say /19 thru /22, but then, router configs come from automated systems now, right? :-)) David. -- David Luyer Phone: +61 3 9674 7525 Network Development Manager P A C I F I C Fax: +61 3 9699 8693 Pacific Internet (Australia) I N T E R N E T Mobile: +61 4 1111 BYTE http://www.pacific.net.au/ NASDAQ: PCNTF
Current thread:
- Re: genuity - any good?, (continued)
- Re: genuity - any good? Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Adam Rothschild (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? matthew zeier (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? Kris Foster (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? Kris Foster (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Jesper Skriver (Apr 13)
- RE: genuity - any good? Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? Martin, Christian (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? Daniel Golding (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Roy (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? David Luyer (Apr 12)