Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2767D21F8639 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.835
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUGZVFGufhVs for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9177D21F860B for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so12372463obb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=wvbRZGy7aUUdj6ioIUx4gUklZQoihfQ8QEqG7ObxTtE=; b=AcGuXjVeEljqOiEvYFuLbwQdxQxbtqS+UZeH/i/Qz6AaFktT6XqPLBhlPoZajv1H85 QR9poyIAyBCMGXf/slgZJYFYIe3AXAJAgq4BH4a9YS2AehDqTeoGVepXjp/HTW+3d22D u/JUuvWM3tN7qdgR/KoVv6RA6MslNm2Qee+5s0FnrcNAPhQFrV8Y6itSSy8icXfGRyWD Xc6qtqxgZ0PiRjxxGnSCdVz4Z1AtO9IdXStJG6TwUkh6PqDa+tteMXjJeTfKT6NMkMZj nsgSQVibsJrVLrYG2Dn1jzILonAbvarj/fMr+3zo8LPT4L7Y0XuNzlGp29qaZYjkj15a UX8w==
Received: by 10.182.164.40 with SMTP id yn8mr24207890obb.40.1343752389143; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.134.137 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <501805AA.5040303@raszuk.net>
References: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CC3C59B2.2275E%nitinb@juniper.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623754A18@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <EE2E7697-92F1-4E98-A3FE-47CDF28C81C7@juniper.net> <F0ABFF98-0B62-4203-B3BA-EF704AE0FBA7@raszuk.net> <CAG4d1rd-g5m6aUb6GQjvu++y6QjHrF1dgsdV7oePMSZaaaomeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CDE9865E-E8DE-4754-A0C2-8875ECCAF865@raszuk.net> <CAG4d1rcL7ttJctimrQEvxaV7L=3QZSCvfTaX43YFyTJF0nYBzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1redZy7=C2asceFYZsZoVsYh_XMLx5+GfxRio76t-97vHg@mail.gmail.com> <501805AA.5040303@raszuk.net>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:32:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD9y9EG5_-bhv--kK_6sPcrfyopAJB99cBDEW4biiJET3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@raszuk.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1DiFSzuR50acLPldZSVW/QTpOtQna3pZpndqqyzIUARuB257XPtlAdYsvrBcKNJYBAs4H
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:33:10 -0000

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:

>
> I can do longest prefix match today using OF priority in each table.
>
> Sure maybe it is not optimal as compared with nice tree lookup alternatives
> we see today with pure IP destination based lookup and of course there is
> room for improvement. But let's work based on the correct assumptions.

At the expense of steering this discussion into a further tangent (and
not offend any work youve done in this space - it is a novel idea;
i have done similar things with broadcom chips myself many seasons back):
The problem with using ACL tables on the switches is their size.
They range anywhere from 128 entries to a few K. Sure, you can perform
acrobatics with re-populating them doing BGP or a medium size network
but why not use the IP functional blocks which exists _on the same chip_
with much better organized tables for ip forwarding etc?

cheers,
jamal