[36644] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Zimmerman)
Thu Apr 12 10:05:32 2001
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:02:50 -0400
From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@csh.rit.edu>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010412100249.B15380@alcor.net>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D36AD@newman.tenornet.com>; from prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 05:16:15PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 05:16:15PM -0400, Kavi, Prabhu 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.
It _does_ show that distributed forwarding will be significantly more complex
and more difficult to implement. I am not arguing that distributed forwarding
is a bad thing; on the contrary, it has a logical and demonstrated performance
benefit. However, it comes with a cost in overall system complexity.
--
- mdz
