[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FYI -- Informal LISP BOF scheduled for lunch time on Thursday

Subject: Re: FYI -- Informal LISP BOF scheduled for lunch time on Thursday
From: Robert Raszuk
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:59:38 -0800
Greg,

But I don't see any difference in power consumption when prefixes are carried in new fancy mapping scheme, when routers get some routes with on demand caching or if they are carried in a new instance of BGP.
Intra-domain the problem is solved today. Core P routers do not need to
keep any routes other then routes to next hops when any form of
tunneling is used. And this is deployed today in many networks.
Inter-domain can be addressed in very same way.
Cheers,
R.


Robert,

Just another thought..

Yes, we vendors can continue to make larger routers. I wonder if there
is a tangible power savings by a new routing architecture over just
building and deploying bigger routers.

Greg

On Dec 5, 2007 7:32 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
 > Hi David,
 >
 > So today at the Routing Area Open Meeting you have explicitly expressed
 > the concern that "routing is about to collapse".
 >
 > I found this statement very interesting.
 >
 > I have been following and discussing with various folks this new wave of
 > fixing the routing. In fact I have my own set of ideas which are in fact
 > very very close to what Lixia was already proposing. Till now even
 > looking ten years ahead no one can show the significant proof that
 > "routing is about to collapse".
 >
 > Contrary there are number of vendors with deployed platforms which are
 > today carrying ten fold number of routes what today's internet carry for
 > some other applications.
 >
 > So I think perhaps it is late before the BOF ... do you have data
 > references which would lead you to believe that routing is about to
 > really collapse ?
 >
 > Cheers,
 > R.
 >
 > PS. Said all of the above I think there are many other benefits for
 > introducing the hierarchy in the inter domain routing .. hence I am very
 > much supporting this as individual. I am just trying to make sure we
 > focus on the correct problem not the imaginary/non-existent ones :).
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > rtgwg mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
 >



_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

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