> I asked this question to a couple of folks: > > "at the current churn rate/ration, at what size doe the FIB need to > be before it will not converge?" > > and got these answers: > > --------- jabber log --------- > a fine question, has been asked many times, and afaik noone has > provided any empirically grounded answer. > > a few realities hinder our ability to answer this question. > > (1) there are technology factors we can't predict, e.g., > moore's law effects on hardware development
Moore's Law is only half of the equation. It is the part that deals with route churn & the rate at which those can be processed (both peer notification and control-plane programming data-plane in the form of FIB changes). Moore's Law almost has zero relevance to FIB sizes. It doesn't map to growth in SRAM or innovations/mechanisms for how to reduce the requirements for SRAM while growing FIB sizes. cheers, lincoln.
