[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Fri Sep 30 10:28:54 CEST 2011
Hello Mike, OK, then we see both the same, just the interpretation is different. Lets see the details. On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > I realy would like to know what makes you so optimistic? While you think >> so that a few hundred thousands more routes doesn!t really matter? >> >> Which kind of routers/line cards could support this at wire speed? Any >> summary of convergence issues in large scale network? >> > > As far as I know, Cisco 7600 with XL PFC, Juniper MX, Cisco ASR 9k, CRS > etc, all handle 1M or more routes, or at least a mix of 0.5M IPv4 and 0.25k > IPv6 routes. I don't see why number of IPv6 routes would converge a lot > slower than number of IPv4 routes. > > Am I missed some new technology that is already implemented allmost >> everywhere? >> > So the hardwired limit of 0.5M IPv4 routes and 0.25k IPv6 does not allow a few hundred thousands more IPv6 routes at all (not even would allow an 0.25M IPv6 limit) -- and speed of processing is an other issue... > > Prefix independent convergence, ie BGP prefix points to loopback which > points to outgoing interface. When you need to converge your IGP you just > rewrite the loopback pointers. > > This doesn't help EBGP of course, but number of routes are increasing > slower tham moores law, so as long as the router vendors implement RIB > processing in modern hw (not PPC :P), RIB handling is fine. > > Still, a lot of platforms can only program approximately 10k prefixes per > second into hw, so increasing number of prefixes by hundreds of thousands > means tens of seconds of increased convergence times for EBGP. > Agreed. Convergence is an issue!!! > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > > In summary: we do not have the technology which would allow a very liberal PI allocation policy, therefore a very liberal PI allocation policy is not possible now. Strict limits must be kept. Thanks, Géza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110930/b75e406f/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]