|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: CIDR Report
On Mon, May 15, 2000, Chris Williams wrote: [snip] > Also, I don't really buy the "how do we manage 250K routes?" arguement. > Any well-designed system which can effectively manage 10K of something, > in general, ought to be able to handle 250K of it; it's just a question > of scaling it up, and there's no question that processors and getting > faster and memory cheaper every day. If there's some magic number of > routes that suddenly becomes unmanagable, I'd love to hear why. I agree with everything you said about /24 multihoming except this. If it were just a question of scaling it up to be faster, then it would have been solved for now and we wouldn't be discussing it. "Making BGP go faster" isn't a "throw more RAM and CPU at it", its a "Actually research the problem with the data we have today and develop new solutions which solve these problems." People in general have this strange concept of well designed; there is no absolute concept of well designed, only "well designed with a given set of data and a given level of knowledge". BGPv4 was designed with different goals, different data and with different ways of thinking, so how do you expect it to scale with _todays_ demands? "Faster BGP" and "Handling 250k routes" is not just a function of CPU speed and memory capacity. You have to consider network topology, latency/packetloss, router software (as well as hardware, so you can throw in your CPU and hardware here), peering patterns, route filtering, IGP/iBGP behaviour and some liberal application of fairy dust. Read Craig and Abha's presentations on BGP convergence at the last two NANOG meetings. It might shed some light on the issues and behaviour involved. Adrian
|