On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote:
> The demise of BGP from unrestrained table growth has been predicted for
> decades.
The exhaustion of IPv4 has been predicted for decades.
> Part of this is because my million dollar router has a slower central proc
> and less RAM than my $2k laptop. So yeah, pigs can fly with sufficient
> thrust, but we are currently using hamsters on a wheel level thrust. There is
> a middle ground.
Sure. However, oddly, vendors haven't been rushing to do this. I suspect (but
do not know for sure) this might be because the market for non-hamster driven
routers is pretty small and the requirements that market has can be quite hard
to meet ("you want packets switched how fast? with how many millions of
knobs?"). Maybe the market will change or a new entrant will come along and
upset the applecart (and not be acquired to be killed).
> Before we claim BGP is dead again, let's take a moment and ensure we didn't
> cripple it first. The protocol, as Chris said, has no inherent problems
> scaling for the a while at least.
DId someone claim BGP was dead?
> It may not be "optimal", but there is something to be said for a protocol
> with a 100% installed base that works, and works well.
LISP doesn't replace BGP. It merely adds a layer of indirection so you don't
have to propagate identity information along with routing topology, allowing
much greater aggregation.
Regards,
-drc
