Jon Zeeff jon at
Wed Aug 16 23:18:03 UTC 1995

> The intrinsic problem is that the routing table is growing faster than
> we can develop bigger routers.  It's not just us.  It's growing faster

One should differentiate between the table needed by a router to route 
and the table needed to calculate routes.  As has been discussed, the 
former isn't a problem - you can route 16M different routes with 16M 
of memory by simple storing the interface number in a table indexed by 
the address.  If your router has 15 or fewer interfaces, you can route 
16M routes with 8MB (one interface per nibble).  That's every /24 
address there is.  There is no size problem here. 

Calculating routes takes more memory and does eventually need to be 
limited, but machines that can do that with 256MB + virtual memory are 
readily available.  So this problem is a ways off. 

IMO, this "routing table size problem" has started to create too much 
momentum towards "reduce the size" and too little towards "how can we 
handle the size".  Perhaps it is because the people deciding some of 
these things aren't the ones who have to spend thousands of dollars 
renumbering thousands of machines on an end user network and/or don't 
need their small network to be dual homed.  

More information about the NANOG mailing list