routing meltdown

Barney Wolff barney at
Sat Aug 12 15:22:00 UTC 1995

> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:41:35 -0700
> From: Paul A Vixie <paul at>
> N**2 BGP4 sessions are bad for likely values of N (100, maybe.)  That won't
> change just because we've got a 1GB-RAM DEC Alpha with a 300MHz processor
> instead of a Cisco to do our route processing.  N**2 BGP4 sessions is a bad
> design no matter what you're implementing it with.  In that sense, your idea
> is not "viable" since it doesn't solve some of the real problems coming up.

Is N**2 sessions on N hosts really so bad?  Am I missing something here?
Since only the hosts are aware of the sessions, I don't see N**2 as a
problem.  Is the rate of updates dependent on the number of peers, or on
the rate of real changes in the real networks?

Barney Wolff  <barney at>

More information about the NANOG mailing list