(cookinjg = cooking) -- ;-).. Sue (but you knew that.) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:49 PM To: Tony Li; Andre Oppermann Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system Andre: Hence my earlier point on #2 - the prefixes in the routing hit one part of Moore's law. The FIB hits another. Using the compression ("cooking") per router can provide one level of abstraction [reduction of prefix space] at router. So cooking down your Large number of routes to a "minimum" set of routes can provide some leverage against the prefix growth. Tony point still stands. The "cookinjg" way to deal with prefix growth by using a compression algorithm for FIB insertion. Moore's law hits the security filters, the route filters, and lots more - that may or may-not be able to be "cooked". Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:46 PM To: Andre Oppermann Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system Andre,

capacity = prefix * path * churnfactor / second

capacity = prefixes * packets / second

I think it is safe, even with projected AS and IP uptake, to assume Moore's law can cope with this.

This one is much harder to cope with as the number of prefixes and the link speeds are rising. Thus the problem is multiplicative to quadratic.

You'll note that the number of prefixes is key to both of your equations. If the number of prefixes exceeds Moore's law, then it will be very difficult to get either of your equations to remain under Moore's law on the left hand side. That's the whole point of the discussion. Tony