Sorry, I did not want to blame any developer; I only notified that even text presentation of this tables get less memory then the structures in the router. Due to Bill (MS really can't work withouth the heaps of the memory) memory became the cheap gift this days (talking about the memory for the BGP tables, not the fast switch buffers memory). -:) Regards, alex. On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:35:27 -0500 From: Ryan K. Brooks <ryan@inc.net> To: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET> Cc: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net>, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP and memory
Phillip Vandry wrote:
I think you are forgetting that these routes need to be stored in a data structure that allows fast queries as well as fast inserts and deletes. That index takes space, and your "sh ip bgp" doesn't show you that.
Yeah, let's store the routing table in a linked list!
Actually, that isn't that crazy... There's quite a bit of silicon out there that can read link lists very fast (fast enough to paint video frames as an example)... But I suppose we're talking about processor-based (software) routing for the most part..
Ryan Brooks ryan@inc.net
-Phil
No, if someone want to implement the core BGP in the 8 MB ram, he can do it as well (through the cost of his work + cost of debug should be much greater than the cost of 128RAM memory -:)).
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 1 3729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)