[510] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 206.82.160.0/22
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ehud Gavron)
Sun Sep 24 21:08:31 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 18:03:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON@ACES.COM>
In-reply-to: Your message dated "Sun, 24 Sep 1995 18:42:10 -0400"
<9509242242.AA27678@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: nanog@MERIT.EDU
Cc: GAVRON@ACES.COM
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
Date Sent: 24-SEP-1995 18:03:39
Noel wrote:
>
><Let's see, this argument has now been had on CIDRD, Big-Internet, Com-Priv,
>and now it seems to have struck NANOG. Anyone care to guess how many more
>mailing lists we can have the same debate one? This is really tedious, stupid,
>and wasteful, everyone.>
...
>(although 2^18 is still probably too big). The limit might have to move up
>if we fill the routing tables with /18's...
Let's say we did have an absolute limit of /18s and 2^18 entries.
2^18 entries of 32 bytes each is 16Mb, which is almost within the
capacity of a Cisco 2500. (Well, Ok, CISCO would do something clever
about not storing the complete net and mask given that it would never
be more than /18 for external networks.)
Why is this a problem?
Ehud
--
Ehud Gavron (EG76)
gavron@Hearts.ACES.COM
