gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)

Wed Apr 11 22:16:44 UTC 2001

> > > Vendors have known how to solve this problem for many years.
> > > Failure to do so is a poor implementation and has nothing to do
> > > with centralized forwarding being better/worse than distributed
> > > forwarding.
> >
> > Yet another person who does not understand the KISS principle. I am
> > sure in theory it all works great, though I am seeing way too many
> > comments similiar to:
> >
> > "The connectivity issues have been resolved.  This appears to be the
> > same CEF related issues we experienced Monday evening, and we have a
> > case open with Cisco.  As we get more information from Cisco, we will
> > be passing it along."
> 
> Just because Cisco cannot implement it correctly does not mean the concept
> is flawed, any more then we should go back to rip because ospf isn't
> simple and cisco had a bug in it once...

If you do not give a child matches, the child is less likely to start the
fire then if you give child matches. If you do not explain to the child that
it should try playing with fire before he/she realizes what kind of effect
that fire may have, the child is less likely to try it.

Link state protocols should die. 

Cisco has tons of bugs in OSFP + CEF and OSPF + dCEF implementations. They
are called "strange CEF things". Should me a router vendor and I will show
you that it has broken routing protocols.

> There is absolutily nothing wrong with the concept of distributing the
> forwarding table, so long as care is taken to insure synchronization, and
> you are not using a broke-ass IPC and a broke-ass bus which wasn't ever
> designed for it when you make the copy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a concept of communism, none the less
it is better not to try implementing it.

We are not talking about concepts here - we are talking aboung engineering
robust routers. 

> "Math is hard, lets go shopping" -Barbie
> "Hate the vendor, not the routes" -Unknown

Alex