North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Mon Oct 17 17:07:02 2005
  • Authentication-results: imail.cisco.com; [email protected]; dkim=pass (message from cisco.com verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=794; t=1129583660; x=1130015860;c=nowsp; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=Subject:Re=3A=20And=20Now=20for=20Something=20Completely=20Different=20(was=20Re=3A=20IPv6=20news)|From:Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]>|Date:Mon,=2017=20Oct=202005=2014=3A03=3A47=20-0700|Content-Type:text/plain=3B=20charset=3DUS-ASCII=3B=20delsp=3Dyes=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit;b=Sexd5kPi7rwx3UpU5l1Lf7HfwcZLgquJ9IBEiQLACccJ4xodvTswhUdiO32Rz8Kf7s18OPugLosVKJBbmTFmDIzBWiiYriEWMqvZrZg5XHfp7BqbA2aOyAGeRPo5/8m61oqjs8Gv6r5UYv9HykOKGfgNRr5Kp0NY3WsQGyp6aWA=

works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and will have to.

On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Tony Li wrote:

Fred,
If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a different assertion.


There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one- off only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for bloat buys you technology generations.

If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again.

Regards,
Tony