[36626] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Wed Apr 11 19:35:21 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D36AE@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'alex@yuriev.com'" <alex@yuriev.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:41:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
You misunderstand. Getting multiple forwarding tables synchronized
on one box IS simple, if the architecture considered it from the start.
Trying to bolt it on later can cause problems, however. These
problems are an implementation issue on a particular platform.
As a counterpoint to what you say, consider that all commonly
deployed routers that can handle OC-192 rates do NOT have a
single centralized forwarding engine.
Or do you know something about KISS that was not apparent to
those who designed these working products?
Prabhu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alex@yuriev.com [mailto:alex@yuriev.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:41 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
>
>
>
> >
> > 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."
>
> Alex
>
>
>
