RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system

["Susan Hares" <skh () nexthop com>]

(cookinjg = cooking) -- ;-)..

Sue

(but you knew that.)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:49 PM
To: Tony Li; Andre Oppermann
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system


Andre:

Hence my earlier point on #2 - the prefixes in the routing hit one part
of 
Moore's law.  The FIB hits another.

Using the compression ("cooking") per router can provide one level of
abstraction [reduction of prefix space] at router.  So cooking down your

Large number of routes to a "minimum" set of routes can provide some
leverage against the prefix growth.

Tony point still stands.  The "cookinjg" way to deal with prefix growth
by
using a compression algorithm for FIB insertion.  Moore's law hits the 
security filters, the route filters, and lots more - that may or may-not
be
able to be "cooked".

Sue Hares


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:46 PM
To: Andre Oppermann
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system




Andre,

>  capacity = prefix * path * churnfactor / second
>
>  capacity = prefixes * packets / second

> I think it is safe, even with projected AS and IP uptake, to assume
> Moore's law can cope with this.
>
> This one is much harder to cope with as the number of prefixes and
> the link speeds are rising.  Thus the problem is multiplicative to
> quadratic.


You'll note that the number of prefixes is key to both of your  
equations.  If the number of prefixes exceeds Moore's law, then it  
will be very difficult to get either of your equations to remain  
under Moore's law on the left hand side.

That's the whole point of the discussion.

Tony