[138711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Wheeler)
Sat Mar 12 20:44:11 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikwqu_BNxG3ctckJ6v45QVu+e2dMhO6fAukGjgO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:44:04 -0500
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> That must be my mistake then, because I thought the exercise was
> building it in a way that it stays built for the maximum practical
> number of years. When it has to be touched again (or tweaked if it
So when you upgrade a device, you always buy the suitable device which
has the highest capabilities? You put in a top-of-rack switch with
10GbE for servers with no 10GbE ports and no plans of needing 10GbE
connectivity to the next round of servers? You buy a modular router
for branch offices that have only a few workstations and no
predictable need for upgraded connectivity?
This is a good way to waste money, and a bad way to ensure that you
will have the *features* you may want in the future. New features
will not be back-ported to your box of choice, but you will have sunk
unnecessary budget resources into that box, making it harder to
justify upgrades.
--=20
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator=A0 /=A0 Innovative Network Concepts
