nanog mailing list archives
Re: virtual aggregation in IETF
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:50:48 +0800
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which one fills up first?
Well, the actual data point you should look at is "160k odd FIB from a couple years ago can fit in under 2 megabytes of memory." The random fetch time for dynamic RAM is pretty shocking compared to L2 cache access time, and you probably want to arrange your FIB to play well with your cache. Its nice that the higher end CPUs have megabytes and megabytes of L2 cache but placing a high-end Xeon on each of your interface processors is probably asking a lot. So there's still room for optimising for sensibly-specced hardware. Of course, -my- applied CPU-cache clue comes from the act of parsing HTTP requests/ replies, not from building FIBs. I'm just going off the papers I've read on the subject. :) Adrian
Current thread:
- virtual aggregation in IETF Paul Francis (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Alain Durand (Jul 20)
- RE: virtual aggregation in IETF Paul Francis (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Joel Jaeggli (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Adrian Chadd (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Joel Jaeggli (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Adrian Chadd (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Joel Jaeggli (Jul 20)
- RE: virtual aggregation in IETF Paul Francis (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Joel Jaeggli (Jul 20)
- RE: virtual aggregation in IETF Paul Francis (Jul 21)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Adrian Chadd (Jul 20)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Robert E. Seastrom (Jul 21)
- Re: virtual aggregation in IETF Alain Durand (Jul 20)