So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

• Previous message (by thread): So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today
• Next message (by thread): So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> 
> Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as
> long as you're willing to accept the conversion of "null route" to
> "don't care." Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple
> years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in
> typical backbone nodes looked possible. That's 30% of your TCAM
> reclaimable.
> 

Hence the “when programming the TCAM” part of my original statement :)

> For the moment it seems to be cheaper to just build bigger TCAMs.
> Cheaper for the router vendors anyway.
> 

I think of it more like “why spend development dollars on a feature that will cause my customers to keep their existing hardware longer and delay upgrades?” Yes, vendors do think like that.

-C

> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

• Previous message (by thread): So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today
• Next message (by thread): So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]