[173929] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Wed Aug 13 20:20:26 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUMbDqx5TGzjJ6k=G_VH=C0rn9ak_YCz7F62Pusaq9hvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:20:16 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>=20
> Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as
> long as you're willing to accept the conversion of "null route" to
> "don't care." Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple
> years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in
> typical backbone nodes looked possible. That's 30% of your TCAM
> reclaimable.
>=20
Hence the =E2=80=9Cwhen programming the TCAM=E2=80=9D part of my =
original statement :)
> For the moment it seems to be cheaper to just build bigger TCAMs.
> Cheaper for the router vendors anyway.
>=20
I think of it more like =E2=80=9Cwhy spend development dollars on a =
feature that will cause my customers to keep their existing hardware =
longer and delay upgrades?=E2=80=9D Yes, vendors do think like that.
-C
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
