Some thoughts... At 19:07 26/01/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Only an issue for ISPs who insist and persist in carrying the full routing table across their entire network for no purpose other than "because they still can". It seems to be a public given that the only way to multihome your customer is to give them a copy of the full routing table, along with the copy that the other ISP is giving them. If they are forced to carry 260k paths, then yes, router memory is an issue. There is a simple workaround which those who are router memory challenged have been using for years.Also, they are not direct comments regarding this proposal, but there were following comments regarding the route aggregation. - wouldn't it still be an issue for ISPs that are not able to afford the latest router? The cost of router memories are very high compared to those of PCs
Routing tables are stored in memory on the linecards - so if my previous comment doesn't apply, yes, memory will have to be added to the linecards too.- Latest routers have routing tables in i/f as well, so it cannot be addressed by simply adding memories
Simple answer is "yes". Complicated answer is "it depends". But again, I query why it is a given that to be part of the Internet an ISP needs to carry 130k prefixes from each ISP it has as an upstream.- Wouldn't it use a lot of CPU to calculate the routes once the peer drops?