routing table go boom

Tue Mar 19 22:24:33 UTC 2013

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
> With all due respect to the emperors involved, the complete "zomg, don't
> grow the routing table!" argument includes the seldom-stated tagline,
> "....faster than I want to replace my existing hardware."

Hi Doug,

Sure, it's about the bucks. Each additional route is a collective loss
of around $8,000 per year, and all of it overhead for which we can't
bill specific customers. We'd prefer less of that than more.

http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html

> IOW, it's never
> been about the tech, or "the good of the network," it's about the capex.

Actually, that's not true. There was a point in the '90s where the
route count very nearly outstripped our ability to build routers which
could handle it. That's when we first hit the brakes. Since then our
ability to build routers has improved faster than the routing table
has grown, but a material change in the rate of growth could quickly
wipe out that lead.

Routine full-bore multihoming for SMBs and SOHOs will have to wait for
a less consumptive technology than BGP. (And if you've got the cash,
call me 'cause I have a plan.)

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004