too many routes

Vadim Antonov avg at
Wed Sep 10 09:22:41 UTC 1997

Joseph T. Klein  <jtk at> wrote:

>The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not
>want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity.

Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone.  Just FYI.

Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+
routers had memory soldered in.  The box was absolute top of the line
when it started to fall over.

>Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a
>free market.

This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues
remains absymally low.

It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor.  Even the
mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic
measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen.

Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news?

>>Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market
>>from being open.

>Hey folks, it is not closed. Keep the faith and let the big boy bleed market
>share. I would hope that ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC would have the guts to keep
>giving routable blocks to new contenders.

Oh, yeah.  How clueful.  Nowadays only a telco or an oil company
can afford to get into the backbone market.  IP allocation is an
insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the
backbone market.

>Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and

Can you spell "economies of scale"?  Or "using fiber at cost means
owning the fiber"?   If you want to play the backbone game you've
got to own long-haul transmission facilities.

A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than
neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler.


More information about the NANOG mailing list