[101909] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sun Jan 20 17:22:45 2008
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0801201234m4c45b848y9a1210b896b67246@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:10:32 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The difference is much, much, much greater than that. Can the switch
>> do ACLs? Policy routing? SFlow with the same sampling rate? Same
>> number of BGP session?
>
> Is there some alternate piece of cheap hardware that supports the DFZ
> prefix count at high data rates but doesn't have those features? If
> the answer is no (and I'm pretty sure the answer is no), then the
> prefix count remains the proper attribution for the cost delta.
We still disagree.
I notice you cut out the next two sentences:
<quote>
In short, if the table were 50K prefixes instead of 250K, would these
pieces of equipment be equivalent? The answer is a blatant "no".
</quote>
If we take out the "proper attribution for the cost delta" out of the
equation and the equipment is still not considered equal, I submit
your idea of "proper attribution" is, well, not proper.
To be clear, of course there are some people who could use either if
the table were 50K prefixes. But the majority of routers in the DFZ
cannot be replaced by cheap 1U (or whatever) switches which can do a
few 10s of 1000s of prefixes. (Besides, the people who _can_ use them
can use them today with properly configured filters, perhaps on the
upstream router's side. Which, of course, means the upstream router
cannot be one of those cheap switches. :)
Perhaps you should justify numbers with nine zeros a little better
before asking me to justify why they are wrong.
--
TTFN,
patrick
