On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:20:56PM -0700,
> william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 23 lines which said:
>
> > How is that an "anti DoS" technique when you actually need to return
> > an answer via UDP in order to force n
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:23 +
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > ... is that system level (combinatorial) effects would limit
> > > Internet routing long before moore's law could do so.
> >
> > It is an easy derivative/proxy for the system level effect is all.
> > Bandwidth for
On 8/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> vijay gill
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM
> > To: John Paul Morrison
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: [
> > ... is that system level (combinatorial) effects would limit Internet
> > routing long before moore's law could do so.
>
> It is an easy derivative/proxy for the system level effect is all. Bandwidth
> for updates (inter and intra system) are another choking point but folks
> tend to be even
On 8/10/07, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ vijay]
>
> > I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The
> point
> > isn't that the latest generation hardware cpu du jour you can pick up
> from
> > the local hardware store is doubling processing power every n month
On 8/10/07, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a message written on Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:08:26AM -0700, vijay gill
> wrote:
> >substantially behind moores observation to be economically viable. I
> >have some small number of route processors in my network and it is a
> >m
[ vijay]
> I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point
> isn't that the latest generation hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from
> the local hardware store is doubling processing power every n months.
agreed.
> The point is that getting them qualified, tested
In a message written on Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:08:26AM -0700, vijay gill wrote:
>substantially behind moores observation to be economically viable. I
>have some small number of route processors in my network and it is a
>major hassle to get even those few upgraded. In other words, if y
On 8/10/07, John Paul Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And yet people still say the sky is falling with respect to routing
> convergence and FIB size. Probably a better comparison BTW, would be with a
> Nintendo or Playstation, as they are MIPS and PowerPC based. Even the latest
> route pr
>Very interesting. We've all heard and probably all passed along that little
>bromide at one time or another. Is it possible that at one time it was true
>(even possibly for AOL) but with the rise of CDNs, policies of not honoring
>TTL's have fallen by the wayside?
I think you'll still see it i
In a message written on Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:21:37PM +, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
> (1) there are technology factors we can't predict, e.g.,
> moore's law effects on hardware development
Some of that is predictable though. I'm sitting here looking at a
heavily peered exchange point
11 matches
Mail list logo
