[85805] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Mon Oct 17 17:05:18 2005
In-Reply-To: <FFBCF3ED-E492-44CB-BAAF-51C8693D4300@tony.li>
Cc: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:03:47 -0700
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol -
but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and
will have to.
On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
>
>> If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of
>> magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally
>> change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and
>> yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a
>> different assertion.
>>
>
>
> There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in
> the table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it
> to bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one-
> off only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for
> bloat buys you technology generations.
>
> If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems
> that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to
> happen again.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
