[98517] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [ppml] too many variables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Fri Aug 10 14:40:43 2007
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: ppml@arin.net, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:08:26 MST."
<21ef2c1c0708101108t5dc91c8dt4c4982d15635b780@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:32:59 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
[ vijay]
> I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point
> isn't that the latest generation hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from
> the local hardware store is doubling processing power every n months.
agreed.
> The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then
> deployed is a non trivial task. We need to be substantially behind moores
> observation to be economically viable. I have some small number of route
> processors in my network and it is a major hassle to get even those few
> upgraded. In other words, if you have a network that you can upgrade the RPs
> on every 18 months, let me know.
yow. while i agree that routing processors cannot, and have historically not
had to, track moore's law, i am still surprised to see such a heavy focus on
the RP. my (ample) gut feeling on this is that system level (combinatorial)
effects would limit Internet routing long before moore's law could do so.
