[98947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sat Aug 25 21:06:04 2007
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:03:50 -0400
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com>
Cc: "David Conrad" <david.conrad@icann.org>, Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0708251744x593b673buf5889f70bde036eb@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:44:45 -0400
"William Herrin" <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/25/07, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
> > In another mailing list, someone has asserted that "noone believes
> > router vendors who say [they can support 2M routes today and 10M
> > with no change in technology]".
>
> > Do you believe router vendors who state they today have "capacities
> > on the order of 2 million ipv4 routes and they have no reason to
> > expect that they couldn't deliver 10 million route FIB products in a
> > few years given sufficient demand."?
>
> David,
>
> NNTP is similar to BGP in that every message must spread to every
> node. Usenet scaled up beyond what anyone thought it could. Sort of.
> Its not exactly fast and enough messages are lost that someone had to
> go invent "par2".
>
Netnews was originally designed for 300 bps dial-up modems with O(1)
hubs. Fortunately, the technology evolved to meet the load. Will BGP
evolve that way? Netnews didn't demand anything more in common than a
file format, and the only major change in it was within 2-3 years after
it was invented. BGP doesn't have that property.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
