North American Network Operators Group

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

Multi-homing - service provider issues

  • From: Dustin Goodwin
  • Date: Thu Apr 06 09:12:02 2000

Well from sentiment I pick up from nanog lists and last nanog meeting it
does not seem many provides are actually worried about the size of the
internet routing table anymore. Use to be the main objection to routing
table growth was the fear of core routers become expensive space heaters . I
am inferring here that routers have caught up and then some handling larger
and larger tables. So why is there still so much resistances to supporting
multi-homed customers that, shock horror, involves providers advertising
more discreet routes that are in the middle of their cider blocks? I am
guessing administrative overhead is main objection now. The whole
micro-allocation conversation show provider willingness to allow growth in
the routing tables. I have my flame retardant suit on so go for it.

The next good question is what do providers think the remaining headroom,
prefix and route wise, is remaining in the main stream platforms (rsp/4,
gsr, m40,etc). I am assuming this is not main mem size issue since routers
these day can take in obnoxious amounts of memory. Guessing again more of a
cpu capacity and (for dCef type implementation) line card memory related

- Dustin -

ps. Excuses like my network still runs on an AGS+ will not cut it. :-)