[76965] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri Jan 7 15:48:45 2005
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:47:08 -0500
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <41DEEAE0.9090503@ttec.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:02:40PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
> >This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
> >Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
> >Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats@lists.apnic.net
> >
> >If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>.
> >
> >Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 08 Jan, 2005
> >
> >Analysis Summary
> >----------------
> >
> >BGP routing table entries examined: 153319
> > Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89967
>
> Should it matter that in six months its gone from 140k to 153k?
> At this rate it might crack 200k in less than two years.
I think that's a matter that seems to be already decided. People
want multihoming, redudnancy and such and are willing to put the burden
on the global routing table as a result.
The result, people are upgrading router memory to the max, lots
of people have been asking recently about how much memory for a full
routing table, etc..
I think the simple answer is:
If you're using anything "recent" (ie: since 2001) you're going
to want to use 256m at minimum and ideally 512m-1g of dram in your system
with a reasonable cpu to process updates quickly.
This is something that the market has really demanded (multihoming)
so the result is a global impact. The statement "think globally, act
locally" comes to mind, but it's a tough problem as everyone depends on
their internet connectivity these days, so they want it to be
as reliable as possible.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
