[286] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing meltdown
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent W. England)
Tue Aug 15 23:51:55 1995
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:47:10 -0800
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: kwe@6SigmaNets.com (Kent W. England)
At 2:08 PM 8/11/95, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
>I clearly think that colocated workstations are better than route processors
>inside the routers themselves. I'm less certain that they are better than
>route servers and a unified/recursive/realtime RADB. I'm not sure at all
>that any interconnect can, should, or ever shall require this kind of dual-
>routing setup for its members. In other words, why are we discussing this?
I like the idea of workstation-based route processors over
forwarding/routing engines because it decouples the complex route
processing s/w environment from the forwarding function.
The economics of complex route processing don't match the economics of big
honking routers and workstations are a better development environment.
The reason to talk about it here is that if we are to move forward in this
direction we need a simple exchange protocol between route server and
forwarding engine to make this happen.
--Kent
