Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Mon, 15 February 2010 07:10 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 C21DB28C127 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:10:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, 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 w74o-hwDgEVq for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:10:36 -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 C024A28C0FE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn16 with SMTP id 16so5342783iwn.10 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:12:04 -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=/7HrUg7CuQsgKyxlmCNUlgwRufn5an9XHaNCs4ZGj+8=; b=U+W7jnNp4cdtalCDXi0hDjOg7j1TW6qhA9bHiZexMEcGmX7O+fXt1Z/4lu+Zd8XRxk 99Hx3kvyWwm9/cTcvIV0dsQRlDvDufyY62GkSEKmxPvrvC8vP+wEVL6EXsQsMSIebu9X sBlAKBHmprJJ9hPiSs0Sy5afPpNwhVsZ2UKLk=
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=K3tjpDQH3AECyqGWFlZrQH3lsiXHFopVxLYVoqLktGbo2xsvHMB0tBkW8VK5fmY32A AQ8cUMWSU36tFEPzT6TXRWsVYUKNbyT/Is3iczhvmuHDEK3i+W8fC27EvwAVSZdxvPNz XGNM8mA4PIxULVSlQW8ficjvC8Sd1IwlleAlc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.169.144 with SMTP id z16mr2867702iby.25.1266217924553; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:12:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20696.13f4eda4.38a9b95d@aol.com>
References: <20696.13f4eda4.38a9b95d@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:12:04 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 81ecc1ed66819f76
Message-ID: <75cb24521002142312x70f692edp38f80cea7b6a0287@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: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:10:38 -0000

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM,  <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote:
> In einer eMail vom 14.02.2010 21:25:40 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
> morrowc.lists@gmail.com:
>
>> 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
>
> Thanks Chris,
>
> 80+ neighbors, that's a whopper
>
> Wouldn't you favor a solution where you can exploit that densitiy rather
> than  be frightened by it ?

I'm not really frightened by it though. (I was just quoting some
possible numbers, I imagine if you had a fully mesh of LSP's in your
global network you'd have many more than 80 per device, and you'd have
software to manage that mesh.)

-Chris