Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:21:20 -0800 (PST) | From | "James W. Laferriere" <> | Subject | re: was something like "ipv6 and the average user" |
| |
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Kelly Setzer wrote: > >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:02:02 +0000 (GMT) > >Subject: Re: IPv6 and the "average user" > >> So, with 64MB or so, it's possbile to store fairly complete routing > >> tables for IPv4. The problem is the larger address blocks of IPv6. > >> (And also that some older routers can't use so many simms. This is not > >> really a problem for most Linux systems tho.) > > > >The killer isnt just routing tables. The killer is lookup time. Cisco stuff > >is supposed to flake out at about 40,000 routes from figures people have > >quoted. Hence the fact sprint and folks won't route smaller than a /19 and > >keep making noises abou going to /17. > > > >I would imagine some other kit can do better some worse, nevertheless trying > >to look up destinations from 40,000 choices at 100Mbits/second on 10 network > >ports, while recomputing the routing tables is NOT a trivial problem. > >Alan > > This does not pertain to linux-kernel in any way: Ascend has announced > the "GRF 400", an IP "switch" (huh? what? an IP switch?). It > promises hardware assisted route table lookups and traffic across all > interfaces at "wire speed". The specs mention that is can handle > 150,000 routes. > http://www/ascend.com/products/grf400/grf400index.html > > For those of us that are bandwidth-hungry....this is definitely a > "woodening" article. > Kelly
> the "GRF 400", an IP "switch" (huh? what? an IP switch?). It ^^^^^^^ Still will require 64MB of ram in its route processor to hand the -present- 32k+ route table.
This is directly from one of their GRF engineers. JimL
_________________________________________ | James W. Laferriere | Network Engineer | | babydr@nwrain.net | System Techniques | | 25416 - 22nd S. | Kent, WA 98032 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux | | but only on AXP | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |