nanog mailing list archives
Re: number of hops != performance
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:22:46 -0500
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:13:37PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We have competitors that are claiming that their network is superior to ours (salesdroids to customers) because they have fewer L3 hops in their network. I see this "fact" pop up in customer questions all the time. I can see that L3 hops adds latency if a network is built on slow (2meg for instance) links, but at gigabit speeds, L3 hops adds microseconds in latency (if you use equipment that forward using hardware-assisted forwarding, but as far as I know there are no routers out there nowadays that doesnt).
Of course L3 forwarding is not by itself "bad" for the packets. However... If you have a network with "excessive" hops (for some definition of excessive), it probably means one or more of the following: A) you have a poor (or at least non-elegant) network design. B) you have more places for things to go wrong in both hardware and software. C) you're busy gratifying your architectural ego instead of designing the simplest thing possible which gives you the necessary performance and reliability. D) you're buying so much unnecessary hardware that you are either not not financially healthy or you're not passing on as much savings as you could be to your customer. Now while I'm sure that you don't fit into that definition of "excessive", I can think of a few people who do, and they try to use that "but more L3 hops are never bad" argument. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Current thread:
- number of hops != performance Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 05)
- Re: number of hops != performance Gary Coates (Nov 05)
- Re: number of hops != performance Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 05)
- Re: number of hops != performance Petri Helenius (Nov 05)
- Re: number of hops != performance Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 05)
- Re: number of hops != performance Petri Helenius (Nov 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: number of hops != performance Michael . Dillon (Nov 05)