nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route leak in Bangladesh
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:52:41 +0100
On 01/07/2015 15:12, Jared Mauch wrote:
I would like to see others participate in the dialog with vendors so we don't seem to be quite an outlier with "wow, you have really large configs". The vendors haven't quite kept pace with the increase in density proportional to the number of configuration lines and it sure feels like we are the only people pushing them to improve.
This is a strange sort of thing really. There's no reason that a compiled prefix list of 250k entries should take up much RAM in a trie structure; there's no reason that a competently written parser shouldn't be able to handle 20 megs of prefix lists / sets in a trivial amount of time and there's no reason that writing a 20 meg configuration file should take long to write to disk / flash / etc. BIRD handles this in ultraquick time. Even recent versions of Quagga can now suck + parse 10 megs of prefix filters in a second or two and write them out in less. But Junos / IOS / XR puke horribly. What gives? Nick
Current thread:
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh, (continued)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mike Hammett (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Hugo Slabbert (Jul 02)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 02)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Joe Abley (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)