[10451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routing vs Switching (was Re: Another UUNET Explanation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Vaden)
Wed Jul 2 08:48:53 1997
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 07:41:15 -0500
To: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
From: Larry Vaden <vaden@texoma.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <ytzps60zru.fsf@cesium.clock.org>
At 01:49 AM 7/2/97 -0400, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>
>The idea is to conserve the amount of work any given
>router has to do with respect to convergence, since that's
>a poorly-scalable hot-spot.
>
>In the past the hot-spot may have been the amount of
>traffic through a box, such that so few fat interfaces
>could be used that it was economically compelling to move
>that particular load into some sort of L2 switch and take
>the lumps wrt inherent routing scalability problems and
>the lack of conservation of configuration effort.
>
>Since there are existence proofs that this hot spot is now
>no longer economically insurmountable, and some much
>crunchier boxes are on the near horizon, the argument for
>using smart L2 fabrics at all is becoming weaker.
Sean,
We're involved in a discussion on pagan@apnic.net about whether the
Internet can afford to have a bunch of small multi-homed ISPs connected to
the net with PI /19s.
IMHO, there is not adequate participation by folks of your level of expertise.
Would you join the discussion please? While I suspect you are subscribed
to the list, I'll be glad to forward recent posts if you so desire.
I appreciate your consideration of the matter and your time.
Thanks,
Larry
---
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365
<http://www.texoma.net> fax 903-868-8551
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571
