Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Sun, 14 February 2010 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E907128B23E for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:24:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXa9HV-TYAI0 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f186.google.com (mail-iw0-f186.google.com [209.85.223.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7003E3A75B2 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn16 with SMTP id 16so4978382iwn.10 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:25:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b4lwJihWWnDLeonofcIZVP6AmZK6fKFJXmgQgdx7Ta0=; b=U2b0zg0U3hfqS0jkl2kfePPb500HTGEfqLtGgrpIUzmgTZwuDHlqvqhJM++VzFR2vt wddvhXrab2jvnbCtRbBe27Fn0ivfjslacDrrUf5sP1v8xixDk0llUH/yrDpwibjhAYF6 CzEzwuuAuYpc00Y7gfNPssbk9b1zzD7gejTK8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=MB3Xgz4/5oxHklORrFUj9aB0UKmmR5oAfOVaGxynoeQPkr4+hXeUqerONRk6ymaikk QytWitgITNJ6hHcFK/NOyt5UozJaGo8DlAvdGptoohcN9y9KsKLKHoawE79Mltb7ZFto /dnCwA1PsUSO4fgCd3I3RGoboatsppJ56WdGk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.145.74 with SMTP id c10mr126436ibv.51.1266179139772; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:25:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <75cb24521002141224q6fc3c482t4066f0065f5df62f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1fd7b.112816d7.38a9b2e9@aol.com> <75cb24521002141224q6fc3c482t4066f0065f5df62f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:25:39 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 87cb171f876b08b8
Message-ID: <75cb24521002141225o4f83d6ady9a2bad7016d30a53@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:24:20 -0000

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM,  <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote:
>> In einer eMail vom 14.02.2010 17:00:37 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
>
>> Consider that there are more than 10,000 egress DFZ-routers ! 184 756 times
>> 10 000 = 1 847 560 000 shortest routes. However there are multitudes
>> thereof, if you envisioned (loopfree of course) detours as well! And if you
>> envisioned that DFZ routers have more than 4 neighbor nodes (BTW, can anyone
>> provide useful valid figures so that we can discuss density issues and
>> aspects?)
>
> a T1600 has 8 slots of 4 PIC's each, you can get 1x10G for each PIC.
> a CRS1 (full-height) chassis has 16 slots, 4x10G on each I believe?
>
> you can get this sort of info, as an approximation of connectedness of
> a node from every vendor's website.

oops, keeping in mind that's physical interfaces, with some MPLS
schemes the 'dfz' router could be connected to each DFZ router in the
same ASN over a logical link (LSP), so... a single DFZ router could
have (in the case of a moderate network, with US only coverage)
something like 80+ neighbors over these logical paths.

-chris