[36625] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Steenbergen)
Wed Apr 11 19:30:40 2001
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:44:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: alex@yuriev.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104111831110.98098-100000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:40:33PM -0400, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
>
> > Vendors have known how to solve this problem for many years.
> > Failure to do so is a poor implementation and has nothing to do
> > with centralized forwarding being better/worse than distributed
> > forwarding.
>
> Yet another person who does not understand the KISS principle. I am
> sure in theory it all works great, though I am seeing way too many
> comments similiar to:
>
> "The connectivity issues have been resolved. This appears to be the
> same CEF related issues we experienced Monday evening, and we have a
> case open with Cisco. As we get more information from Cisco, we will
> be passing it along."
Just because Cisco cannot implement it correctly does not mean the concept
is flawed, any more then we should go back to rip because ospf isn't
simple and cisco had a bug in it once...
There is absolutily nothing wrong with the concept of distributing the
forwarding table, so long as care is taken to insure synchronization, and
you are not using a broke-ass IPC and a broke-ass bus which wasn't ever
designed for it when you make the copy.
"Math is hard, lets go shopping" -Barbie
"Hate the vendor, not the routes" -Unknown
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
