This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Wed May 10 09:59:31 CEST 2006
Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, Hi, >>Moreover, considering bandwidth requirement for the next 5 or >>10 years, I don't think backbone routers can have huge routing >>tables. > Looking at the architecture of modern routing gear I fail to understand > how "forwarding plane speed" relates to "control plane convergence time". I'm not saying such a thing. I'm saying that, given a so short duration for routing table lookup, we must make memory for routing table smaller and simpler. Note that, at 1Tbps, 500B packet is 4ns long, at 10Tbps 0.4ns. If you try to solve the problem by parallelizm, you must provide tens or hundreds copies of routing table hardware, which consumes a lot of money and power. That is, there are at least two reasons, one is convergence time and the other is look up time, to make backbone routing table small. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]