North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
At 12:08 AM +0200 2005-07-09, Andre Oppermann wrote: I'm not surprised. After all, time does march on.The biggest routers are being upgraded anyway because of even higher link speeds and port desities. But it doesn't help if the largest/fastest line cards available today are made obsolete overnight by people who have no concept of what it costs to route packets at OC-192 or OC-768 line speeds, and suggest that all the routers in the world could be replaced by a small handful of no-name el-cheapo PCs. Problem is, a Tier-1 provider is still going to have hundreds or thousands of routers that have to be upgraded, and there are a number of Tier-1s. Tier-2s aren't quite as bad off, but although they buy some transit from the Tier-1s, they still have a lot of private peering and they're not that far out of the DFZ themselves. And the Tier-2s have a lot less money to pay for the ultra-expensive forklift upgrades for the BFRs and GSRs and all that other mega-million dollar equipment.A Cisco "CRS-1 16-SLOT LINE-CARD CHASSIS ROUTE PROCESSOR" comes with 4 GB of route memory default size. Juniper's T320 and T640 come with 2 GB of main memory default size. That should take them to some higher number of routes. Meanwhile, a surprising number of people have to try and get by with linecards having only 128MB of RAM, at least according to RFC 3869. And Volcanoes nicely solve the population problem for those who live too close to them.On the other hand a large DFZ routing table would simply dampen its growth by itself. If it gets to costly to multihome because of the hardware requirements only few would be able to so. Ergo we have a negative feedback system here keeping itself in check. Case solved and closed. -- Brad Knowles, <[email protected]> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
|