/27 the new /24
josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
Fri Oct 2 19:29:09 UTC 2015
Unfounded claim and a personal attack...
1100 Wayne St
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch <jj at anexia.at> wrote:
> > Stop using old shit.
> Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works
> and you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks.
> Jürgen Jaritsch
> Head of Network & Infrastructure
> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
> E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com
> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett
> Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38
> An: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24
> Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small
> business with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big
> business with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support
> big router.
> I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need
> to throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with
> the times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more
> power, space, heat, etc. efficient.
> I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco
> routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so
> they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll
> be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old
> setup consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in
> power... and is worse.
> Stop using old shit.
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM
> Subject: Re: /27 the new /24
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> > How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router
> > I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If
> > someone's network can't match that today, should I really have
> > any pity for them?
> Hi Mike,
> The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more
> precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap)
> end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a
> general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB).
> They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large
> routing tables at the same time.
> For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out
> https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see
> folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content
> Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and
> SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an
> O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural
> differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your
> $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100
> router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers.
> That makes it expensive.
> Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the
> systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement:
> Bill Herrin
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
More information about the NANOG