Weekly Routing Table Report

Mon Sep 2 07:17:38 UTC 2019

Did we all forget the size of the IPv6 table is nearing a milestone number
in the DFZ? ;)

> It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes
and consider what all of us accomplished together.
> Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal
traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done.
Patrick W. Gilmore
(Okay pat the back of your local network engineer if you forgot.)
Aclamaciones, Cheers, À votre santé!

> Nowadays boxes can easily take 5x the current 768 in
> tcam and in control-plane -only sky is the limit, so for example there's
no
> need for any clever RR infrastructure designs anymore to hold all the
routes
> in your AS control-plane.
>
adamv0025

If you have an older router that can only handle x number of routes in TCAM
less than the current number of routes; what software are you using to keep
it default free?
Or if the sky is really the limit, sell me your most or least expensive
Tbps capable TCAM that will hold a routing table of 3M+ routes IPv4 and
another 3M+ IPv6 without gimmicks or stipulations. (Low or high number of
interfaces, small or god-sized box.)
Let me know why you like what you have, or what you want to have.

Be thankful for your network.

What's in your rack?

Good Luck

On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 11:46 PM Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> > Yes, my apologies for no reference.  Further, I have no URL to
> > point to as I read the book. (actual book; no e-something)
> >
> > Here's something:  http://pouzinsociety.org
>
> as I can't find open access papers or something like that there,
> let me stick to wikipedia.
>
> > Like the book, in the Wikipedia article you have to get through
> > or skip the first part.  In the book, that's the first 5 or so
> > chapters.  He just describes why, in his opinion, previous things
> > have failed and the way he does it turns a lot of folks off.
>
> Another major misunderstanding of him is that he is not aware that
> domain name with MX is application name and there are proposals
> (though unnecessarily complicated) such as SRV to cover other
> applications beyond SMTP. With SRV, non-default port numbers do not
> have to be specified in URLs.
>
> So, we already have application names of domain names and mapping
> mechanism between names and addresses/port_numers of DNS.
> > E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant
>
> That someone can not recognize relevance between something and the
> E2E principle does not mean much.
> > IPv6 is/was a waste of time
>
> True, but, the reason is because IPv4 Internet with DNS, TCP
> and NAT is good enough.
>
> That TCP identifies connections only by single source and destination
> addresses is certainly a problem. But, the least painful solution
> is to extend TCP to be able to identify connections by multiple
> addresses.
>
> Properly designed NAT can save IP addresses a lot still keeping the
> E2E transparency.
>
> > The RINA's fundamental principles are that computer
> > networking is just Inter-Process Communication or IPC,
>
> That is a too much computer centric view not very
> applicable to communications involving human beings,
> where the E2E argument must often be applied to human
> beings (true end) behind applications (tentative end
> in a computer).
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190902/f32856d6/attachment.html>