[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

Michel Py wrote:
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> > Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > Other people have already mentioned on the list memory/cpu isn't
> > an issue on this day and age. You definitly don't need a c12k to
> > carry a full routing table today.
> 
> This is not what vendors are saying. I presented just after Jeff Doyle
> from Juniper 3 weeks ago and he was very specific about this. I
> extracted that one slide here:
> http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/j.ppt
> 
> Let's face it: I'm sure that Juniper would love to keep selling big
> routers. They are telling us they can't guarantee they will keep up
> increasing memory and CPU, so we do have an issue with memory/cpu.

Haha!! A little bit a weak argument, isn't it?

What if a router vendor would tell you he couldn't guarantee to keep
up with PPS performance if we are going to introduce 10Gig Ethernet???

No way.

Also the Internet doesn't get more instable with more prefixes.
(In)stability is dependent on the number and stability of links
carrying the prefixes. So you have to measure instablity in percent
of the of the entire prefix pool. I don't think we are doing worse
than ten years ago despite an increase of 12'000 percent in prefixes.
Actually the transit network seems to be very stable. There are some
problems with leaf customers who've got BGP but are imcompetent at
it and shoot themselfes in the foot. But that is a competence problem.
(Maybe we a BGP drivers license?)
Convergence time is not dependent on the number of prefixes either.
It's dependent on the min, mean and max radius/diameter of the network
(in terms of hops which carry the full table modulo the intra-AS BGP
reflector mesh).
Ok, maybe some vendors implementation gets instable with more prefixes
but that's a bug and thus an engineering problem.

-- 
Andre