[85901] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Susan Hares)
Tue Oct 18 18:07:52 2005
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:05:16 -0600
From: "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com>
To: "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com>, "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>,
"Andre Oppermann" <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
(cookinjg =3D cooking) -- ;-)..
Sue
(but you knew that.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:49 PM
To: Tony Li; Andre Oppermann
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
Andre:
Hence my earlier point on #2 - the prefixes in the routing hit one part
of=20
Moore's law. The FIB hits another.
Using the compression ("cooking") per router can provide one level of
abstraction [reduction of prefix space] at router. So cooking down your
Large number of routes to a "minimum" set of routes can provide some
leverage against the prefix growth.
Tony point still stands. The "cookinjg" way to deal with prefix growth
by
using a compression algorithm for FIB insertion. Moore's law hits the=20
security filters, the route filters, and lots more - that may or may-not
be
able to be "cooked".
Sue Hares
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:46 PM
To: Andre Oppermann
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
Andre,
> capacity =3D prefix * path * churnfactor / second
>
> capacity =3D prefixes * packets / second
> I think it is safe, even with projected AS and IP uptake, to assume
> Moore's law can cope with this.
>
> This one is much harder to cope with as the number of prefixes and
> the link speeds are rising. Thus the problem is multiplicative to
> quadratic.
You'll note that the number of prefixes is key to both of your =20
equations. If the number of prefixes exceeds Moore's law, then it =20
will be very difficult to get either of your equations to remain =20
under Moore's law on the left hand side.
That's the whole point of the discussion.
Tony
