Unfounded claim and a personal attack...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at> wrote: > > Stop using old shit. > > Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works > and you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks. > > > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT > U63216601 > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett > Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38 > An: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24 > > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small > business with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big > business with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support > big router. > > I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need > to throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with > the times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more > power, space, heat, etc. efficient. > > > I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco > routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so > they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll > be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old > setup consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in > power... and is worse. > > Stop using old shit. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM > Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router > > I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If > > someone's network can't match that today, should I really have > > any pity for them? > > Hi Mike, > > The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more > precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) > end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a > general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). > They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large > routing tables at the same time. > > For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out > https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see > folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content > Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and > SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an > O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural > differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your > $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. > > Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 > router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. > That makes it expensive. > > Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the > systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: > http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >
