re: was something like "ipv6 and the average user"
James W. Laferriere (babydr@nwrain.net)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:21:20 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Kelly Setzer wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:02:02 +0000 (GMT)
> >Subject: Re: IPv6 and the "average user"
> >> So, with 64MB or so, it's possbile to store fairly complete routing
> >> tables for IPv4. The problem is the larger address blocks of IPv6.
> >> (And also that some older routers can't use so many simms. This is not
> >> really a problem for most Linux systems tho.)
> >
> >The killer isnt just routing tables. The killer is lookup time. Cisco stuff
> >is supposed to flake out at about 40,000 routes from figures people have
> >quoted. Hence the fact sprint and folks won't route smaller than a /19 and
> >keep making noises abou going to /17.
> >
> >I would imagine some other kit can do better some worse, nevertheless trying
> >to look up destinations from 40,000 choices at 100Mbits/second on 10 network
> >ports, while recomputing the routing tables is NOT a trivial problem.
> >Alan
>
> This does not pertain to linux-kernel in any way: Ascend has announced
> the "GRF 400", an IP "switch" (huh? what? an IP switch?). It
> promises hardware assisted route table lookups and traffic across all
> interfaces at "wire speed". The specs mention that is can handle
> 150,000 routes.
> http://www/ascend.com/products/grf400/grf400index.html
>
> For those of us that are bandwidth-hungry....this is definitely a
> "woodening" article.
> Kelly
> the "GRF 400", an IP "switch" (huh? what? an IP switch?). It
^^^^^^^
Still will require 64MB of ram in its route processor
to hand the -present- 32k+ route table.
This is directly from one of their GRF engineers. JimL
_________________________________________
| James W. Laferriere | Network Engineer |
| babydr@nwrain.net | System Techniques |
| 25416 - 22nd S. | Kent, WA 98032 |
| Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux |
| but only on AXP |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~