[98519] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [ppml] too many variables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (vijay gill)
Fri Aug 10 15:05:34 2007
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:36:07 -0700
From: "vijay gill" <vgill@vijaygill.com>
To: "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com>
Cc: ppml@arin.net, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <61720.1186770779@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_6439_7957987.1186770967376
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 8/10/07, Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> wrote:
>
> [ 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.
It is an easy derivative/proxy for the system level effect is all. Bandwidth
for updates (inter and intra system) are another choking point but folks
tend to be even less aware of those than cpu.
/vijay
------=_Part_6439_7957987.1186770967376
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Vixie</b> <<a href="mailto:paul@vix.com">paul@vix.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[ vijay]<br><br>> I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point<br>> isn't that the latest generation hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from<br>> the local hardware store is doubling processing power every n months.
<br><br>agreed.<br><br>> The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then<br>> deployed is a non trivial task. We need to be substantially behind moores<br>> observation to be economically viable. I have some small number of route
<br>> processors in my network and it is a major hassle to get even those few<br>> upgraded. In other words, if you have a network that you can upgrade the RPs<br>> on every 18 months, let me know.<br><br>yow. while i agree that routing processors cannot, and have historically not
<br>had to, track moore's law, i am still surprised to see such a heavy focus on<br>the RP. my (ample) gut feeling on this is that system level (combinatorial)<br>effects would limit Internet routing long before moore's law could do so.
</blockquote><div><br><br>It is an easy derivative/proxy for the system level effect is all. Bandwidth for updates (inter and intra system) are another choking point but folks tend to be even less aware of those than cpu.
<br>/vijay<br><br><br></div><br></div><br>
------=_Part_6439_7957987.1186770967376--
