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.
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.
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 ?
> 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]
rtgwg mailing list