Hrm.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Jaritsch" <j...@anexia.at> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:25:10 PM Subject: AW: /27 the new /24 > 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/>
