North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: A call for the future. Was: Re: Verio Decides what parts ofthe internet to drop
- From: Randy Bush
- Date: Wed Dec 08 18:14:23 1999
>>> Full route table size is not a problem. You can burn a hard disk as you
>>> mentioned to store it. The issue is getting data in and out of the
>>> processor, i.e. number of pins. Core flows are not ameneable to caching.
>>> This approach will fail the first time you see a new packet and need to
>>> swap from hard disk.
>> Not that it would be very economical, but what are the technical
>> implications of using a solid state device (such as the Quantum's
>> RUSHMORE NTE series) instead of a normal hard drive?
> Interesting question... even though it's significantly faster than an hard
> drive, it does have some inherent bottlenecks such as a maximum number of
> operations per second which might be a little stifling on a backbone core
> router :) Still, I've never actually tried *that*, so don't know for sure.
> There's also latency in other areas - that leads me to think that regular
> memory is still faster. Finally, it would be attached to the host system
> through a bus (SCSI, whatever) that's a lot slower than the internal
> memory bus.
> These kinds of devices tend to be a better fit for systems that doesn't
> have extreme time limitations on processing data such as for mail spool
> files, etc.
if you had 100TB of on-ASIC SRAM you would still be screwed. you can't
afford the PER-PACKET LATENCY of telco number style portability REFERRAL.
once again: ip is a connectionless protocol. each packet is potentially a
telcos don't mind a second or two in call setup, because it is CALL SETUP,
not 42 times a second.
[ credit scott bradner for making this quite clear even to me in some ietf