- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: CIDR FAQ
by lear＠yeager.corp.sgi.com 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

At the last CIDR meeting did we not have a volunteer to go out and actually run some prediction tools to see where were going, and why? I realize you guys are doing the best you can merely to keep up with the day's troubles, but I'd really like to see some more data on growth. -- Eliot Lear [lear(a)sgi.com]

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ (off topic)
by afink＠ping.ch 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

Please dont CC your messages to local-ir(a)ripe.net. Its off topic there. Thank you ---------------------------------------------------------------- To: peter(a)demon.net Cc: nathan(a)netrail.net, dsiegel(a)net99.net, jon(a)branch.com, sob(a)academ.com, bwatson(a)mci.net, jerry(a)fc.net, inet-access(a)earth.com, HANK(a)taunivm.tau.ac.il, nanog(a)merit.edu, local-ir(a)ripe.net, iap(a)vma.cc.nd.edu, yakov(a)cisco.com Subject: Re: CIDR FAQ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 05:47:43 PDT From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov(a)cisco.com> Peter, > > BTW - I have not studied the RFC's - so what will IPv6 do for us in > the contect of routeing aggregation and latger boxes etc ? > Couple of observations: 1. The ability to aggregate routing information depends on how addresses are assigned, but does not depend on whether addresses are 32 bits wide or 128 bits wide. 2. IPv6 address allocation architecture (see draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicst-addr-allo-01.txt) is the same as IPv4. (just so that folks who read this note would have no doubts, the IPv6 Address Allocation Architecture document was written by Tony Li and myself - the same people who wrote the CIDR Address Allocation Architecture document). Conclusion: In the area of routing aggregation IPv6 will do for us *exactly the same* as what IPv4 does. Yakov. Andreas Fink --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ping Net GmbH, Dorfstrasse 21, 8902 Urdorf, Switzerland afink(a)ping.ch http://www.ping.ch/ Tel: 01-7358333 Fax: 01-7358334 Administration: admin(a)ping.ch Tech Support: support(a)ping.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ping Net Sarl, World Trade Cent er, Av. Gratta Paille 2, 1000 Lausanne 30, Switzerland. Tel: 021-6411339 Fax: 021-6411310 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by jgs＠aads.net 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

At 11:00 AM 8/15/95, Dave Siegel wrote: >Let's excuse the fact that gated consumes more memory than a cisco for the >same amount of routes for a second... > >Okay, so let's talk functionality. > >Are there HSSI PCI cards available? Can you do SMDS over this card? Frame? >What about a DS3 ATM card, or higher? And Paul Traina wrote something vaguely similar. I think you guys are both missing what I think was Jon's original point: Routers forward packets faster than PCs, but the forwarding function and the routing protocol function do not have to reside on the same box. You can add a PC (workstation, whatever) which runs the routing protocol and stuffs routes into the router. It doesn't have to support the link-layer du jour. Ethernet will do the job just fine. As I recall the original discussion was of colocating a router, to forward packets, with a workstation, to compute routes. --John

7 10

Re: routing meltdown
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

At 2:08 PM 8/11/95, Paul A Vixie wrote: > >I clearly think that colocated workstations are better than route processors >inside the routers themselves. I'm less certain that they are better than >route servers and a unified/recursive/realtime RADB. I'm not sure at all >that any interconnect can, should, or ever shall require this kind of dual- >routing setup for its members. In other words, why are we discussing this? I like the idea of workstation-based route processors over forwarding/routing engines because it decouples the complex route processing s/w environment from the forwarding function. The economics of complex route processing don't match the economics of big honking routers and workstations are a better development environment. The reason to talk about it here is that if we are to move forward in this direction we need a simple exchange protocol between route server and forwarding engine to make this happen. --Kent

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Sean Doran 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

| Once the market is there, its usually too late for the poor fools | running the backbone. Hi there. I'm one of those "poor fools". Could you please take this off NANOG? Given the level of factual content, I humbly suggest com-priv as the appropriate venue for this enlightening conversation. Thanks. Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)sprint.net>

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Nicolas Williams 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

Tony Li previously wrote: > The original post was about making time at the Pittsburg NANOG meeting > to talk about solutions to the problem of some exchange routers seeing > tens of thousands (even 100x) paths. The size of a full-Internet route > table is growing (albeit more slowly than it used to), the number of > ASes meeting at the various NAPs and MAEs is increasing, etc. Will the > number of paths heard by some routers at the XPs ever be so large that > they don't fit in the 7000 or 4500m's 64MB of RAM? Possibly (IMHO, > likely). What then? Use lots of filtering to keep the number of paths > heard down and lose flexibility? >Then I ask you to sign a nondisclosure agreement. ;-) Oh, then the whole argument is for naught. :) >We've actually been very good (some say too good) about adding >features. Yes, Cisco is very good about adding software features and even about allowing its customers to beta test software. >Tony > Nick

3 5

Re: CIDR FAQ
by jgs＠aads.net 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

At 7:23 PM 8/15/95, Nicolas Williams wrote: [...] >Colocated BGP4 "proxies" (I'm still not sure what to call these, >anyone?) [...] How about RCP (routing control processor)? And you could call the forwarding box a PSP (packet switching processor). Unless of course IBM has trademarked these or something. --John P.S.: For nostalgia's sake the RCP and PSP could talk over a 4 Mbit token-ring.

1 0

Re: PCs as routers...
by Jonathan Heiliger 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

On Aug 15, 4:22pm, Nathan Stratton wrote: > Ok, yes you are correct you can't drop a DS3 into the back of a PC, but > why not use a 4500 or 7000 for your ds3's and then use a PC to do the > major BGP4? On a 4500 I only can put in 32 megs or ram. Yes gated will > use more ram for the same number of routes, but I can put 128 meg or more > in a PC. >-- End of excerpt from Nathan Stratton I don't know if others have mentioned it... but I seem to recall that DEC was developing a PCI based HSSI interface for PCs. It also recently surfaced on one of the zillions of mailing lists. Granted you'd still need a DL 3100 or Larse Access-T45 to do your DS3 <-> HSSI stuff though. -- Jonathan Heiliger oOo Technical Specialist Email: loco(a)MFSDatanet.COM ooo MFS Datanet, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Telephone: [408].975.2259 oOo NCC: [800].637.4872

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Vince Fuller 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

Please remove CIDRD from the CC list for further discussion of the relative merits of cisco vs. PC routers. This is NOT relavent to the charter of the CIDR Deployment Working Group. Thanks, --Vince (the silent co-chair)

1 0

Re: How do I change my subscription?
by Robert E. Seastrom 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

You have my deepest sympathies. I've been trying for over a year via messages to postmaster(a)merit.edu and others, to get rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net taken off the nanog list (I left Sprint last July). I get mail as rs(a)digex.net directly, and I get mail forwarded to me via Sprint, which means that I get two copies of everything that comes along. Problem is, the folks at Merit consistently deny that rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net is on the list, though if you telnet to merit.edu's smtp port and EXPN the list, you see rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net there, plain as day. Well, you used to be able to. Now if you telnet to merit.edu port 25 and say "expn nanog", the expn will eventually time out. This situation wouldn't be so bad if I could have an ongoing dialog with the Merit folks until we got things straightened out, but the standard MO seems to be to ignore the mail for three weeks to a month before sending back a claim that I'm not on the list and never have been. Then when I respond to that message, it goes in the bit bucket. I went through three iterations of this, and then gave up and wrote an incoming mail action to simply delete all duplicate messages in my nanog mailbox. It's simpler. Since all other mailing lists I used to subscribe to have propagated to rs(a)digex.net and NANOG mail is the only mail to me that routinely traverses Sprint, it crossed my mind to ask Sprint to point all mail for rs@tiny to nanog(a)merit.edu, but that seemed a little mean-spirited. :) ---Rob > I've tried nanog-request(a)merit.edu, it's no a valid address, and > I've tried majordomo(a)merit.edu, ditto. I need to change my > subscription to point to my new address. > > In case anyone's reading this that can do it, I subscribed to this list > as either: > > patrick(a)amdahl.com > patrick(a)oes.amdahl.com > or pjh70(a)eng.amdahl.com > > Starting Monday, my address will be: > > patrick(a)verity.com > > Thanks, and we return you to regularly scheduled business;) > > Patrick

3 2