[99425] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Fri Sep 21 10:29:30 2007
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:18:56 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <46F3C9FE.3060703@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, I have brought myself to three options:
>> Has the option of using default route(s) occurred to you?
>
> welcome to v6. we forgot to sort out routing, so just don't do it.
> you're kidding, right?
No, I'm not kidding but maybe we're talking about a different thing
(you may have a more generalized network in mind).
The way I see it, a network which is considering "Juniper M7i or Cisco
7300 plus a couple of switches" as an option does not _need_ 220K IPv4
routes in its routing table. Whether it has 150K, 40K (Hi Simon!) or
5K shouldn't matter that much from the functionality perspective.
If we still disagree, it might be interesting to hear why filtered BGP
feeds from upstream and appropriately placed default routes to cover
the holes wouldn't provide a functionally and operationally an
equivalent solution?
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
