RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
You misunderstand. Getting multiple forwarding tables synchronized on one box IS simple, if the architecture considered it from the start. Trying to bolt it on later can cause problems, however. These problems are an implementation issue on a particular platform. As a counterpoint to what you say, consider that all commonly deployed routers that can handle OC-192 rates do NOT have a single centralized forwarding engine. Or do you know something about KISS that was not apparent to those who designed these working products? Prabhu
-----Original Message----- From: alex@yuriev.com [mailto:alex@yuriev.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:41 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
Vendors have known how to solve this problem for many years. Failure to do so is a poor implementation and has nothing to do with centralized forwarding being better/worse than distributed forwarding.
Yet another person who does not understand the KISS principle. I am sure in theory it all works great, though I am seeing way too many comments similiar to:
"The connectivity issues have been resolved. This appears to be the same CEF related issues we experienced Monday evening, and we have a case open with Cisco. As we get more information from Cisco, we will be passing it along."
Alex
You misunderstand. Getting multiple forwarding tables synchronized on one box IS simple, if the architecture considered it from the start.
Do the words "backward compatibility" sound familiar to you? How many times would architecture "sort of" change? How many times would the features that should be implemented on the new architecture end up being "sort of" backported to the older architectures? How many real problems would that cause?
Trying to bolt it on later can cause problems, however. These problems are an implementation issue on a particular platform.
No, if the approach creates an environment where those who attempt to implement it periodically fall into traps and break things, it is the problem with the approach.
As a counterpoint to what you say, consider that all commonly deployed routers that can handle OC-192 rates do NOT have a single centralized forwarding engine.
Remember, we started taking about routing decisions, not forwarding decisions. If you look at the 2nd message that I sent, I actually pointed to someone that routing table is not a forwarding table, and a routing view is not a forwarding table either. Now back to the questions: There are no currently deployed routers that can hanfle OC-192 rates. They do not exist. Played with the one that was supposed to do it the other day. It was of a pretty blueish color. Crashed it with traffic... OOops.
Or do you know something about KISS that was not apparent to those who designed these working products?
It looks like those who designed those working products have some issues with the KISS principle... Thanks, Alex
Prabhu
-----Original Message----- From: alex@yuriev.com [mailto:alex@yuriev.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:41 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
Vendors have known how to solve this problem for many years. Failure to do so is a poor implementation and has nothing to do with centralized forwarding being better/worse than distributed forwarding.
Yet another person who does not understand the KISS principle. I am sure in theory it all works great, though I am seeing way too many comments similiar to:
"The connectivity issues have been resolved. This appears to be the same CEF related issues we experienced Monday evening, and we have a case open with Cisco. As we get more information from Cisco, we will be passing it along."
Alex
participants (2)
-
alex＠yuriev.com -
Kavi, Prabhu