|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: too many routes
Joseph T. Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not >want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity. Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone. Just FYI. Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+ routers had memory soldered in. The box was absolute top of the line when it started to fall over. >Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a >free market. This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues remains absymally low. It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor. Even the mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen. Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news? >>Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market >>from being open. >Hey folks, it is not closed. Keep the faith and let the big boy bleed market >share. I would hope that ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC would have the guts to keep >giving routable blocks to new contenders. Oh, yeah. How clueful. Nowadays only a telco or an oil company can afford to get into the backbone market. IP allocation is an insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the backbone market. >Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and >competitive. Can you spell "economies of scale"? Or "using fiber at cost means owning the fiber"? If you want to play the backbone game you've got to own long-haul transmission facilities. A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler. --vadim
|