RE: too many routes

[Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>]

Joseph T. Klein  <jtk () titania net> wrote:

> The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not
> want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity.

Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone.  Just FYI.

Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+
routers had memory soldered in.  The box was absolute top of the line
when it started to fall over.

> Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a
> free market.

This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues
remains absymally low.

It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor.  Even the
mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic
measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen.

Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news?

> > Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market
> > from being open.

> Hey folks, it is not closed. Keep the faith and let the big boy bleed market
> share. I would hope that ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC would have the guts to keep
> giving routable blocks to new contenders.

Oh, yeah.  How clueful.  Nowadays only a telco or an oil company
can afford to get into the backbone market.  IP allocation is an
insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the
backbone market.

> Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and
> competitive.

Can you spell "economies of scale"?  Or "using fiber at cost means
owning the fiber"?   If you want to play the backbone game you've
got to own long-haul transmission facilities.

A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than
neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler.

--vadim