North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
- From: Gary Zimmerman
- Date: Mon Mar 03 09:45:45 1997
Has anyone looked at Ascend's (NetStar Gigarouter). We have and like the
direction. If they continue to deliver, I think they are going in the
right direction. Still some parts missing, I hope we can hold on until
they get here, but the direction is right. I think the open idea is the
only way to go on this issue.
Savvis Communications http://www.savvis.com
"The only limits are those of vision."
> From: Joseph T. Klein <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Paul Ferguson <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
> Date: Sunday, March 02, 1997 5:25 AM
> Warning -- I feel a diatribe emerging. ;-)
> Afordability is primarily a question of how large your existing
> base of legacy routers is and your cash flow.
> You can build a box using a free versionof Unix (FreeBSD, NetBSD,
> Linux, or whatever your religion of the day), off the shelf
> hardware, and gated to route a full backbone routing table
> (memory and CPU are cheap) for less than $3K. This is less
> than the cost of a single interface card for a Cisco 7xxx!
> Kids; do not try this at your gateway without adult supervision.
> We are re-designing the Internet to make up for the fact the
> largest manufacturers of routers has been slow to develop and
> deploy systems that can keep up with the growth curve. A lot of
> this comes down to size of the memory bus on low cost systems.
> If port density was not so poor on general purpose hardware, we
> would have been far better off deploying "open systems" for routers
> rather than what exists today.
> I have always liked my Ciscos, but I truly love routing with my Unix
> systems running gated. ... now If I could find some cheap channelized
> DS-3 cards for a DEC AlphaStation 500. ;-)
> I may be talking out of my hat here, but I suspect a DEC AlphaStation
> 500 with 256M of RAM ranks pretty well against a 75xx.
> Somebody, dig up the stats for me ...
> If router manufacturers worked on hardware and all used an open
> software standard ... such as gated ... we would all be better off.
> Open standards allow all of us to benefit from the work of others.
> The old Unix Guru's mantra is 'build on the works of others.'
> Let us not make the mistakes of the 1890s and associate domination
> of the market by oligopolies as good capitalism. Big corporations,
> like big government, tend to move slowly.
> Open markets NOT dominated by a single large player is GOOD
> capitalism. It increases the pace of innovation and prevents
> price fixing. It makes for a healthy, dynamic, marketplace.
> This holds true for routers, backbone providers, toasters
> and operating systems (sorry Bill)
> open standards = open markets
> Open standards prevent the failures of a single market
> player from inhibiting the growth of the industry.
> Open standards lower the cost to upgrade large installed
> Reductions in the federal budget are squeezing R&D expenditures in
> the US to an all time low. Large corporate downsizing and corporate
> mergers have done the same for most large corporations. The bulk
> of innovation in the US will come from small companies and
> development consortiums.
> It is from these that the next generations of routers will
> come. Open standards make the rapid utilization of new
> technologies possible and fuel the growth of small companies.
> The Internet is a great place for consorting on standards.
> This is what is cool about the IETF!
> Standards do not keep the big boys from playing ...
> Cisco and Bay could easily join in an open standard
> for router software. It would not be hard to have interoperability
> between the IP portions of IOS and gated.
> IOS is the PL-1 of routers. Bay's management reminds me of CICS. ;-)
> Back to the subject ...
> You CAN also use the RA (where available) to reduce your routing
> overhead, save memory and reduce CPU usage. (The RA runs a hacked
> version of gated that calculates large routing tables quite well.)
> Hmm ...
> router $100,000 amortized over 3 years = 2,800/month
> going DS-3 price at a NAP with line = 7,000/month
> engineer $70,000 per year min. = 5,900/month
> overhead for a small company = 20,000/month
> $50+/month/mile for OC-3 lines ... don't even talk about
> local loop costs!
> Routers connect customers.
> customers = cash flow.
> The highest cost of running a national network is not buying routers,
> it is bandwidth, staff, and administrative overhead.
> Router cost is primarily a factor for smaller networks with limited
> cash flow.
> I contend ...
> It is the ISPs who try to be dual homed with 'routing tricks' rather
> than using edge routers that can process a core routing table, who
> contribute most to routing instability.
> Boardwatch stated that 14% of ISPs are dual homed. I would bet
> that 70% of those do not use routers capable of processing a core
> routing table.
> Anybody have any stats?
> We need cheap routers that run BGP4 and can eat a core routing table.
> 2501s just don't hack it in dual homed configurations ... and most
> small guys just don't wish to blow $50,000 on putting 7505s at the
> edges of their networks.
> --- On Sun, 02 Mar 1997 13:48:46 -0500 Paul Ferguson
> > At 01:39 PM 3/2/97 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > >
> > >True enough. Of course, this doesn't mean that we can't have routing
> > >table growth, as we will have processor capacity growth, but it does
> > >mean that the growth of the routing tables must be kept in line with
> > >what the router processors can do.
> > >
> > True enough. However, it might also be novel to keep the cost
> > down to a level that people can actually afford.
> > - paul
> ---------------End of Original Message-----------------
> From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net
> E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: 13:25:09 CST/CDT 03/02/97
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -