virtual aggregation in IETF

Joel Jaeggli joelja at
Sun Jul 20 17:01:40 UTC 2008

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we 
>> have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which 
>> one fills up first?
> Well, the actual data point you should look at is "160k odd FIB from a couple
> years ago can fit in under 2 megabytes of memory."
> The random fetch time for dynamic RAM is pretty shocking compared to L2
> cache access time, and you probably want to arrange your FIB to play well with
> your cache.
> Its nice that the higher end CPUs have megabytes and megabytes of L2 cache
> but placing a high-end Xeon on each of your interface processors is probably
> asking a lot. So there's still room for optimising for sensibly-specced
> hardware.

If you're putting it on a line card it's probably more like a RAZA XLR, 
more memory bandwith and less cpu relative to the say the intel arch 

That said I think you're headed to high end again. It has been 
routinetly posited that fib growth hurts the people on the edge more 
than in the center. I don't buy that for the reason outlined in my 
original response. If my pps requirements are moderate my software 
router can carry a fib of effectively arbitrary size at a lower cost 
than carrying the same fib in cam.

> Of course, -my- applied CPU-cache clue comes from the act of parsing HTTP requests/
> replies, not from building FIBs. I'm just going off the papers I've read on the
> subject. :)
> Adrian

More information about the NANOG mailing list