IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISPACs

Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com> Thu, 05 December 1996 10:32 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa09099; 5 Dec 96 5:32 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05965; 5 Dec 96 5:32 EST
Received: from alink.net (ns.alink.net [207.135.127.66]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id UAA04163 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:35:00 +1100
Received: from quest.pluris.com (avg@quest.pluris.com [207.135.126.68]) by alink.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA12978; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:34:47 -0800
Received: (from avg@localhost) by quest.pluris.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA00983; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:33:53 -0800
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 01:33:53 -0800
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com>
Message-Id: <199612050933.BAA00983@quest.pluris.com>
To: avg@pluris.com, tli@jnx.com
Subject: Re: ISPACs
Cc: cidrd@iepg.org

Memory is cheap.  There's noting bad about a routing table with
a million entries (it's only six to eight Mb, with a sane data
structure) if there's little flap.  So the main reason to
reduce the routing table size is to reduce flap.  What i am saying
is that a lot more significant effect can be achieved with a way
simpler means.

--vadim

>And pray tell, how did this diverge to route flap?

>Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email