nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:53:44 -0600
Thus spake "Todd Vierling" <tv () duh org>
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:3. Route processing and FIB lookups scale worse than linear6. Moore can't go on forever, there are physical limitationsThe funny part: Those on this list who have cited Moore's Law don't seem to have an understanding that it does not directly apply to custom routing logic (since general-purpose CPUs are no longer fast enough to do the lookups on the high end). In addition, GP CPUs are no longer scaling exponentially, but rather closer to quadratically and approaching linear. In short, Moore's Law is dying,
Moore's Law says nothing about performance; it only refers to transistor densities. In fact, current CPUs are still following the predicted curve, but they're turning fewer and fewer of those transistors into actual performance improvements. That's what the move to dual-core is about: finding more productive ways to use the wealth transistors now available.
However, I agree that custom logic for routers does not necessarily follow the same curve; the volume is still low enough that vendors can't (or don't) use the best processes available. Heck, even the best available main CPUs are several years behind what's available in the PC market (why ship a 2GHz CPU when you can ship a 500MHz one at ten times the price?).
and even if it weren't, it is not a valid argument for "let the swamp in".
One of the key attributes of the v4 swamp is that most orgs got more than one assignment (aka routing slot), often dozens to hundreds; the proposed policies for a "v6 swamp" do not allow that.
S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves withK5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
Current thread:
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing), (continued)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Todd Vierling (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Roland Dobbins (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andy Davidson (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)