nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:14:48 +0100 (BST)
intel systems can do this. forget the talk of juniper t320s in the core.. you are talking about the problem caused by multihoming and multihoming prefixes are not originated typically by such large and expensive routers but by small cheap systems at the edge. Steve On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
It's chiken and egg problem. They do not have 4 Gb, because they do not need it_now_. techbnically it is not a problem even today. Small RAID systems have 1 Gb RAM easily. Line cards do not need so much memory - they can always cache routing tables. Just again - it is not _technical_ problem. IPv6 addressed problem which do note exists in reality. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com> To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () merit edu>; "Brad Knowles" <brad () stop mail-abuse org> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:12 PM Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008randy already asked for a kibosh on the lunacy here... I agree, it'd be nice, but... On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:You do not need to - any router have only `1 - 10% of all routing table active, and it is always possible to optimize these alghoritms.and routing vendor's haven't already done some optomizing you think?On the other hand - what's wrong with 4Gb on line card in big corerouter?oh, please please name the router vendor that has 4gb of 'ram' (tcam/fpga/asic-'memory') on the 'linecard'. Oh, can't come up with one? One wonders why that is? If the solution were as simple as: "Joe, add 1.21jigawatts of memory to the linecard so we can support +1M routes" Don't you think the vendor would have done this to get people to stop bitching at them?It's cheap enough, even today. And we have not 1,000,000 routes yet.In YOUR network you don't... I'd venture to guess there are quite a few very large networks with +1M routes in them today. remember though, I'm the chemical engineer... and I was trained to MAKE the crack cocaine...
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Daniel Roesen (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Joe Abley (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Daniel Roesen (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Brad Knowles (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Tony Li (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Brad Knowles (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 09)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Lesher (Jul 09)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 09)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Michael Loftis (Jul 10)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 07)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 07)