[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt

Subject: Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt
From: Curtis Villamizar
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:56:18 -0500
In message <[email protected]>
Naiming Shen writes:
> >> 
> >>That's cool. I guess my concern was that not all the forwarding
> >>architecture has the indirect adjacency forwarding capability
> >>due to hardware or performance issues.
> > 
> > 
> > This is true.  The performance issues of older hardware from specific
> > vendors is out of scope for a discussion of the protocols although it
> > is a practical consideration for providers that have certain older
> > hardware.  I don't pretend to know which hardware can and can't do
> > this, but I do think its quite a lot of it.
> You might be surprised on this, since it's not just with the legacy
> hardware pieces, even the new ones, with increasing demand on services,
> features, and marketing requirement for small packet in line rate,
> this is one place performance can be boosted. Of course, this has
> "nothing" to do with the protocol design ;-)
> Cheers.
> - Naiming

Or I might not be surprised and I was being generous.

Either that or I was trying to imply that some vendors are currently
making legacy hardware.  But that wasn't the case.  :-)


> > OTOH if the goal of the provider is to support VOIP and the gateways
> > that need the fast restoration are in the IGP it might be good enough
> > to support fast restoration of the IGP only and let BGP catch up at
> > its own slower pace.  Again this is a practical consideration for the
> > operator and out of scope for the protocol specs themselves.

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>