Giving this some thought, (something i never do before posting to nanog nromally), I assume initally only the larger ISPs would opt for such a purchase of that magnatude, lets say these new routers go into production, and only the largest ISPs buy them, now we have largest ISPs listening to the annoucements of /24s in space normally disallowed, now over time other ISPs will still refuse to listen to those annoucements except for the ones with these new magical routers. Consider that for a moment, Quickly customers will ditch their ISP for one of the few who will annouce and will listen to the networks. Image the Markering Dept nightmare with ISPs claiming to be able to "Route more of the net then our competitor. This is why we have policy disallowing this, if ISPs aren't on the same page, this sort of nonsense scenario would happen, since we do have policy, and a ounce of sense, this scenario should never happen. The net must route, but lets all do it the same way, shall we? On Mon, 15 May 2000 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2000 15:05:45 EDT, Chris Williams <chris.williams@third-rail.net> said:
"routers with faster bgp implemetations are what is needed" is what we say, but the question a vendor asks is "does it increase my profit margin, revenues, or market position?". what we "want" is mostly irrelevant. Don't you think introducing something which is A) In significant demand, and B) Nobody else has, generally works to increase one's market share?
You (and a lot of other people) seem to have forgotten a line item:
C) Price Point. How much are people willing/able to PAY for such a feature, and how many do you have to sell at that price to offset the R&D costs?
Sure, *any* good router vendor can build a router that can handle 100 million routing table entries. The questions are (a) can they do it for a pricetag of under $2M, and (b) how many will they sell?
-- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech