[12220] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: too many routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Wed Sep 10 05:52:55 1997
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:22:41 -0700
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com>
To: jtk@titania.net, nanog@merit.edu
Joseph T. Klein <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
>The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not
>want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity.
Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone. Just FYI.
Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+
routers had memory soldered in. The box was absolute top of the line
when it started to fall over.
>Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a
>free market.
This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues
remains absymally low.
It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor. Even the
mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic
measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen.
Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news?
>>Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market
>>from being open.
>Hey folks, it is not closed. Keep the faith and let the big boy bleed market
>share. I would hope that ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC would have the guts to keep
>giving routable blocks to new contenders.
Oh, yeah. How clueful. Nowadays only a telco or an oil company
can afford to get into the backbone market. IP allocation is an
insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the
backbone market.
>Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and
>competitive.
Can you spell "economies of scale"? Or "using fiber at cost means
owning the fiber"? If you want to play the backbone game you've
got to own long-haul transmission facilities.
A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than
neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler.
--vadim
