> Noel Chiappa wrote: > Needless to say, the real-time taken for this process to complete > - i.e. for routes to a particular destination to stabilize, after > a topology change which affects some subset of them - is dominated > by the speed-of-light transmission delays across the Internet > fabric. You can make the speed of your processors infinite and it > won't make much of a difference.
This is total bull. The past stability issues in BGP have little to do with latency and everything to do with processing power and bandwidth available to propagate updates. In other words, it does not make any difference in the real world if you're using a 150ms oceanic cable or a 800ms geosynchronous satlink as long as the pipe is big enough and there are enough horses under the hood. Only if we were shooting for a sub-second global BGP convergence the speed of light would matter. > Stephen Sprunk wrote: > The IPv4 core is running around 180k routes today, and even > the chicken littles aren't complaining the sky is falling. I was about to make the same point. Ever heard whining about a 7500 with RSP2s not being able to handle it? Yes. Ever heard about a decently configured GSR not being able to handle it? No. Heard whining about receiving a full table over a T1? Yes. Heard whining about receiving a full table over an OC-48? No. Anybody still filtering at /20 like everybody did a few years back? > and the vendors can easily raise those limits if customers demand > it (though they'd much prefer charging $1000 for $1 worth of RAM > that's too old to work in a modern PC). You're slightly exaggerating here. I remember paying $1,900 for 32MB of ram worth $50 in the street :-D Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
