Traffic locality and other questions
avg at pluris.com
Thu Sep 25 21:31:02 UTC 1997
Sean M. Doran wrote:
> If all of these assumptions prove to be invalid, and in
> particular if it is cheaper to build equipment which are
> better at switching very small amounts of data across many
> diverse physical paths,
The cost of building a 1 Tbps/line signle data path router
at the present level of technology: infinity.
Everything is cheaper than that :)
> if a routing scheme that can fully
> exploit this can be developed,
There's no need for L3 routing to be aware of multiplicity of
physical paths underneath.
> and if it is more
> economical to use many small pipes than a few large pipes,
For some reason i doubt it. The general rule -- use transmission
technology presently at the bottom of price/performance @ performance
curve; and replicate it accordingly to reach desireable performance
> then obviously one would be better off not aggregating
> traffic, and perhaps even deaggregating it and its
> complementary reachability information.
You can have deaggregated traffic and still keep aggregated
reacheability information, as long as you constrain topologies
to multiple-parallel-links in otherwise small general graph.
There are no routing technologies which wouild scale for
large general graphs, to my knowledge.
More information about the NANOG