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 ;-)
> - 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