[86216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blaine Christian)
Wed Oct 26 21:07:15 2005
In-Reply-To: <43601333.404@interlink.com.au>
Cc: Alexei Roudnev <alex@relcom.net>, nanog@nanog.org,
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
From: Blaine Christian <blaine@blaines.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:06:48 -0400
To: Lincoln Dale <ltd@interlink.com.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
> there have been public demonstrations of released routers
> supporting upwards of 1.5M IPv4+IPv6 prefixes and demonstrations on
> routing churn convergence time. <http://www.lightreading.com/
> document.asp?doc_id=63606> contains one such public test.
>
The http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?
site=testing&doc_id=63606&page_number=6 part may be a bit
misleading. For me it would be more interesting to see what happens
when 500k routes completely disappear from the router then come
back. I want to see a 500k route push from a neighboring CRS in
that amount of time...
Of course the routes can switch quick when you use a layer of
indirection (folks have been doing that for a few years now). My
question is how fast can you install routes from a standing start (or
a 1/4 of a standing start if this is 2M prefixes).
I will leave the question on whether it is actually worth an
investment in time and resources as an exercise for the reader <grin>.
Lightreading people, test it like that! It will be much more
entertaining and perhaps even a bit enlightening to see how major
vendors compare on "brand new" route installation into RIB and FIB.
They only have to twiddle a couple bits to make indirection work
quickly. Having to deal with a brand new prefix is a completely
different problem.
