North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

  • From: Alexei Roudnev
  • Date: Sat Jul 09 03:57:35 2005

It's chiken and egg problem. They do not have 4 Gb, because they do not need
it_now_. techbnically it is not a problem even today.
Small RAID systems have 1 Gb RAM easily.

Line cards do not need so much memory - they can always cache routing
tables. Just again - it is not _technical_ problem.
IPv6 addressed problem which do note exists in reality.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[email protected]>
To: "Alexei Roudnev" <[email protected]>
Cc: "NANOG" <[email protected]>; "Brad Knowles" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

> randy already asked for a kibosh on the lunacy here... I agree, it'd be
> nice, but...
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> >
> > You do not need to - any router have only `1 - 10% of all routing table
> > active, and it is always possible to optimize these alghoritms.
> >
> and routing vendor's haven't already done some optomizing you think?
> > On the other hand - what's wrong with 4Gb on line card in big core
> oh, please please name the router vendor that has 4gb of 'ram'
> (tcam/fpga/asic-'memory') on the 'linecard'. Oh, can't come up with one?
> One wonders why that is? If the solution were as simple as: "Joe, add
> 1.21jigawatts of memory to the linecard so we can support +1M routes"
> Don't you think the vendor would have done this to get people to stop
> bitching at them?
> > It's cheap enough, even today. And we have not 1,000,000 routes yet.
> >
> In YOUR network you don't... I'd venture to guess there are quite a few
> very large networks with +1M routes in them today.
> remember though, I'm the chemical engineer... and I was trained to MAKE
> the crack cocaine...