[242] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing meltdown
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barney Wolff)
Sat Aug 12 11:28:19 1995
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 95 11:22 EDT
From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:41:35 -0700
> From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
>
> N**2 BGP4 sessions are bad for likely values of N (100, maybe.) That won't
> change just because we've got a 1GB-RAM DEC Alpha with a 300MHz processor
> instead of a Cisco to do our route processing. N**2 BGP4 sessions is a bad
> design no matter what you're implementing it with. In that sense, your idea
> is not "viable" since it doesn't solve some of the real problems coming up.
Is N**2 sessions on N hosts really so bad? Am I missing something here?
Since only the hosts are aware of the sessions, I don't see N**2 as a
problem. Is the rate of updates dependent on the number of peers, or on
the rate of real changes in the real networks?
Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
