[161589] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Wed Mar 20 13:50:59 2013
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CADLW2vyofaD0XwGcwMYHyP_rbvgFOSnbKCSrLTz42vEpti8hpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:50:50 -0400
To: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 20, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org> =
wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 17:30, Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> I appreciate everyones comments on this issue but I think you
>> nay-sayers are going to lose. I think the future of the internet is
>> distributed routing where the end points ultimately decide how their
>> packets flow.
>>=20
>=20
> You have actually *heard* of BGP version 4, right? We've only been =
using it
> for 20 years, you'd have thought people would switch to it in their
> masses...
What's interesting is I see more people (eg: datacenter operators) =
pushing for
BGP in their devices, and scale in them because it is well fed and =
maintained
vs trusting/using OSPF/CLNS/ISIS and getting the performance limits =
there fixed.
They would rather use the TCP timeouts vs OSPF timeouts for link =
discovery
and routing performance. This tells me there is perhaps a gap in =
capabilities
or performance that isn't well documented and being worked around.
- Jared=
