North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Regarding global BGP community values

  • From: Alex P. Rudnev
  • Date: Wed Oct 13 05:29:49 1999

Sorry, Vadim is wrong; but those who program small embeddes systems 
know a lot about this. Through _yes, the memory was the CORE - it had the
weight, the size, you could see every bit as a distinct hardware gift
-:). There was the CUBES of the MEMORY .

And I noted - sems momory should not be any problem today.
Just as CPU power. The network stability should be. And network resources.


PS. Sorry for the offtopic in NANOG.

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Vadim Antonov wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:56:24 -0700
> From: Vadim Antonov <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Regarding global BGP community values
> Aw, Tony, you're talking to a guy who made his name
> programming discrete transistor computers with core
> memory (i mean _real_ core memory, and real germanium
> transistors :)
> I bet he knows more than anyone else in this list about
> squeezing bits :)
> Cheers,
> --vadim
> PS  Old-timers are entitled to being grumpy about how
>     wasteful the modern computing is.  After all, how do you
>     feel about operating systems which just have to have
>     at least 30 Mb of RAM to be useful? :)
> From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> "Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
> > The growth itself do not cause the problems, but in conjunction with the
> > poor router implementation (which cause 60,000 routes to use 30 MB of the
> > RAM - that means 500 bytes for every prefix -:) and numerous memory leaks
> > in the router implementation cause the problem. If we look around, we'll
> > see existing computers (including embedded ones) have not CPU and memory
> > problems, and all problems we see with the routers are mainly caused by
> > the bad implemented text.
> I, and the rest of the Internet community, would like to invite you to start a
> router company and show us how it can be done with far less memory.
> ;-)
> More seriously, you might take a look around and note that there are not a
> great deal of difference in the amount of memory needed to support a prefix
> across the various well-known implementations.  Which is not to say that we're
> blameless, just that a lot of good people have worked hard and are all equally
> incompetent at conserving memory while simultaneously producing a scalable,
> stable, feature-rich implementation.
> Regards,
> Tony

Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)