One question - which percent of routing table of any particular router is REALLY used, say, during 1 week?
I have a strong impression, that answer wil not be more than 20% even in biggerst backbones, and will be (more likely) below 1% in the rest of the world. Which makes a hige space for optimization. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:50 AM Subject: Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system > > At 11:30 AM 10/18/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > >I guess it's time to have a look at the actual scalability issues we > >face in the Internet routing system. Maybe the area of action becomes > >a bit more clear with such an assessment. > > > >In the current Internet routing system we face two distinctive scalability > >issues: > > > >1. The number of prefixes*paths in the routing table and interdomain > > routing system (BGP) > > > >This problem scales with the number of prefixes and available paths > >to a particlar router/network in addition to constant churn in the > >reachablility state. The required capacity for a routers control > >plane is: > > > > capacity = prefix * path * churnfactor / second > > > >I think it is safe, even with projected AS and IP uptake, to assume > >Moore's law can cope with this. > > Moore will keep up reasonably with both the CPU needed to keep BGP > perking, and with memory requirements for the RIB, as well as other > non-data-path functions of routers. > > > > >2. The number of longest match prefixes in the forwarding table > > > >This problem scales with the number of prefixes and the number of > >packets per second the router has to process under full or expected > >load. The required capacity for a routers forwarding plane is: > > > > capacity = prefixes * packets / second > > > >This one is much harder to cope with as the number of prefixes and > >the link speeds are rising. Thus the problem is multiplicative to > >quadratic. > > > >Here I think Moore's law doesn't cope with the increase in projected > >growth in longest prefix match prefixes and link speed. Doing longest > >prefix matches in hardware is relatively complex. Even more so for > >the additional bits in IPv6. Doing perfect matches in hardware is > >much easier though... > > Several items regarding FIB lookup: > > 1) The design of the FIB need not be the same as the RIB. There is > plenty of room for creativity in router design in this space. > Specifically, the FIB could be dramatically reduced in size via > aggregation. The number of egress points (real or virtual) and/or > policies within a router is likely FAR smaller than the total number > of routes. It's unclear if any significant effort has been put into this. > > 2) Nothing says the design of the FIB lookup hardware has to be > longest match. Other designs are quite possible. Again, some > creativity in design could go a long way. The end result must match > that which would be provided by longest-match lookup, but that > doesn't mean the ASIC/FPGA or general purpose CPUs on the line card > actually have to implement the mechanism in that fashion. > > 3) Don't discount novel uses of commodity components. There are fast > CPU chips available today that may be appropriate to embed on line > cards with a bit of firmware, and may be a lot more cost effective > and sufficiently fast compared to custom ASICs of a few years ago. > The definition of what's hardware and what's software on line cards > need not be entirely defined by whether the design is executed > entirely by a hardware engineer or a software engineer. > > Finally, don't discount the value and performance of software-based > routers. MPLS was first "sold" as a way to deal with core routers not > handling Gigabit links. The idea was to get the edge routers to take > over. Present CPU technology, especially with good embedded systems > software design, is quite capable of performing the functions needed > for edge routers in many circumstances. It may well make sense to > consider a mix of router types based on port count and speed at edges > and/or chassis routers with line cards that are using general purpose > CPUs for forwarding engines instead of ASICs for lower-volume sites. > If we actually wind up with the core of most backbones running MPLS > after all, well, we've got the technology so use it. Inter-AS routers > for backbones, will likely need to continue to be large, power-hungry > boxes so that policy can be separately applied on the borders. > > I should point out that none of this really is about scalability of > the routing system of the Internet, it's all about hardware and > software design to allow the present system to scale. Looking at > completely different and more scalable routing would require finding > a better way to do things than the present BGP approach. > >
