Joseph T. Klein <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity.
Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone. Just FYI. Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+ routers had memory soldered in. The box was absolute top of the line when it started to fall over.
Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a free market.
This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues remains absymally low. It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor. Even the mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen. Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news?
Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market from being open.
Oh, yeah. How clueful. Nowadays only a telco or an oil company can afford to get into the backbone market. IP allocation is an insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the backbone market.
Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and competitive.
Can you spell "economies of scale"? Or "using fiber at cost means owning the fiber"? If you want to play the backbone game you've got to own long-haul transmission facilities. A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler. --vadim
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com> Subject: RE: too many routes Joseph T. Klein <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity.
Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone. Just FYI. Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+ routers had memory soldered in. The box was absolute top of the line when it started to fall over. Not to mention the obvious problem, the routing table was growing exponentially. I don't care how much memory you put in a box, if we hadn't solved that problem, the game would have been over.
Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a free market.
This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues remains absymally low. It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor. Even the mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen. Absolutely.
participants (2)
-
Paul Traina
-
Vadim Antonov