Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter

Sun Sep 9 14:32:32 UTC 2007

On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:50:25PM -0500, Forrest wrote:
[snip]
> It seems either option would be better for not breaking connectivity than 
[snip] 
Flatly, in my experience breaking connectivity for the apathetic 
or clueless folks abusing the commons is the only way to get them
to change behavior.  At worst, your own customers are inconvenienced
while the other party gets rulers and prepares for a locker room
measuring contest, and you relevent first poking a hole in a policy.
At best, clued technical people trapped in the remote networks' 
organization get an "I told you so" reason to Do The Right Thing.  

You can rathole the discussion on specific implementations and 
memory structures all the livelong day, but that won't change any
individual operator's behavior.  Are your confident YFRV will 
deliver any updated feature[s] in a timescale that fits your own 
networks' projected FIB & memory crush?  Will it actually address 
the problem or just move the curve a little further into the future?

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE