[103533] in North American Network Operators' Group
Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Sat Apr 5 06:18:51 2008
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:16:01 +0200
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
CC: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <48580.1207360287@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig5E5C33ECF4768D1FD8951422
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul Vixie wrote:
[..]
> i wouldn't want to get in an argument with somebody who was smart and s=
avvy
> enough to invent packet switching during the year i entered kindergarde=
n,
> but, somebody told me once that keeping information on every flow was *=
not*
> "inexpensive." should somebody tell dr. roberts?
Isn't the reason that "NetFlow" (or v10 which is the the IETF/Cisco=20
named IPFIX) exists the side-effect of having routers doing "flow based=20
routing" aka "keeping an entry per IP flow, thus using that entry for=20
every next packet to quickly select the outgoing interface instead of=20
having to go through all the prefixes" ?
The flows are in those boxes, but only for stats purposes exported with=20
NetFlow/IPFIX/sFlow/etc. Apparently it was not as fast as they liked it=20
to be and there where other issues. Thus what exactly is new here in his =
boxes that has not been tried and failed before?
Greets,
Jeroen
--------------enig5E5C33ECF4768D1FD8951422
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFH91FkKaooUjM+fCMRAo5OAJ0eSLA4iBGjC2HDMhR6w6JtgzsRNwCgissT
XJ0RKLA5Rp5bbp9Kba5ouwE=
=XpJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig5E5C33ECF4768D1FD8951422--
