[122571] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BIRD vs Quagga
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Feb 17 00:51:04 2010
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <72F9A69DCF990443B2CEC064E605CE062775@Pascal.zaphodb.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:50:29 -0800
To: Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@byrneit.net>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-02-16, at 19:53, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> There's significant theoretical work, backed up with lots of practical
> experience connecting a lot more nodes in real time in a lot more =
places
> than the Internet currently does, that posits that the control and
> forwarding plane should actually ALWAYS be separate, and control =
higher
> priority, so that state management converges faster than the =
dataflows.
>=20
> I'd like to see the countervailing, peer reviewed, references.
I have no shortage of anecdotes where a non-trivial layer-2 topology at =
an exchange point has left my router and provider X's router both able =
to talk to a route server, but unable to talk to each other directly. =
Since the NEXT_HOP on routes we each learnt from the route server =
pointed at an address we couldn't talk to, the result was a black hole.
So while your theoretical work might well have substantial merit, its =
application to the example at hand seems potentially lacking.
I am somewhat intrigued at this network you mention with which people =
have practical experience that has more nodes than the Internet does, =
though. That'd be quite a network.
Joe
