[99202] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Sun Sep 9 10:47:39 2007
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:32:32 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0709081740000.15986-100000@almightyc64-mail2.dyndns.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:50:25PM -0500, Forrest wrote:
[snip]
> It seems either option would be better for not breaking connectivity than
[snip]
Flatly, in my experience breaking connectivity for the apathetic
or clueless folks abusing the commons is the only way to get them
to change behavior. At worst, your own customers are inconvenienced
while the other party gets rulers and prepares for a locker room
measuring contest, and you relevent first poking a hole in a policy.
At best, clued technical people trapped in the remote networks'
organization get an "I told you so" reason to Do The Right Thing.
You can rathole the discussion on specific implementations and
memory structures all the livelong day, but that won't change any
individual operator's behavior. Are your confident YFRV will
deliver any updated feature[s] in a timescale that fits your own
networks' projected FIB & memory crush? Will it actually address
the problem or just move the curve a little further into the future?
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
