nanog mailing list archives

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)


From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:55:38 -0500


"The right tool for the job" gets into a religious argument in assuming
that one's way to do the job is the only reasonable way to do the job


I disagree that it's religious. I completely agree there are locations in
networks that having full DFZ capable routers doesn't make technical or
economic sense. But there have long been different products for those
different use cases.

To perhaps explain my viewpoint better,(and perhaps I didn't properly
comprehend the problem you're aiming to solve) :

If you are trying to use SDN stuff to shuffle routes on and off a box
because you have the wrong sized routers in place, then I would argue
you're doing it wrong.

If you are trying to use SDN stuff to (as Christopher mentioned) make
decisions that are not strictly LPM, and the equipment you have cannot do
that, then that's different and entirely reasonable.

If the second use case is more of what you were asking, then I apologize
for misunderstanding.



On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 9:57 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

"The right tool for the job" gets into a religious argument in assuming
that one's way to do the job is the only reasonable way to do the job.

Large networks historically have a very poor (IMO) model of gigantic iron
in a few locations, which results in sub-optimal routing for the rest of
their network between those large POPs. I've heard time and time again that
someone buying service from a major network in say New Orleans has a first
hop of Dallas or Atlanta. I agree that full-route capable routers need to
be in the large, central locations, but it isn't cost effective to have
them at every POP, especially if you're a last-mile provider.

I'd go into more examples of where it doesn't make sense to have
full-route routers everywhere, but I'm afraid that the Internet would then
focus on the examples instead of the core idea of intelligently putting
routes into the FIBs of low-FIB routers throughout my network.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------
*From: *"Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc>
*To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
*Cc: *"Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org>, "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 4, 2023 7:36:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

Disagree that it’s a line in the sand. It’s use the right tool for the
job.

If a device is low FIB, it’s that way for a reason. There are plenty of
ways to massage that with policy and software, depending on capabilities ,
but at the end of the day, trying to sort 10 pounds of shit to store in a 5
pound bag is eventually going to end up the same way.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 13:18 Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

There are likely more networks with 10 gigabit or less total external
capacity than there are with more.

Creating imaginary lines in the sand doesn't really help anyone.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------
*From: *"Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org>
*To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
*Cc: *"NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
*Sent: *Tuesday, January 3, 2023 10:57:34 AM
*Subject: *Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

It’s not a problem, due to cheap, plentiful high-speed memory and rapid
prefix search silicon in backbone routers. The entire Internet routing
table consumes at most a few gigabytes when fully structured (and only a
few hundred Mbytes stored flat).  That’s less memory than your average
laptop sports.


Even in the worst case scenario, where every network decides to announce
only its most specific prefixes, the BGP backbone would temporarily enter
an oscillating state that generates a large number of routing updates into
the inter-domain routing space. In this case, BGP route damping will
quickly suppress the crazies while  the backbone stabilizes.


Small routers should not be taking full tables, since there is no point
to them being in the default free zone. For large routers, neither memory
nor CPU speed are an issue. High-speed routers operating in the
default-free zone have a critical path in the forwarding decision for each
packet: it needs to take less than the inter-packet arrival time for
minimum-sized IP packets.


This is easy to achieve with today’s hardware. A router line card with an
aggregate line rate across all of its point-to-point interfaces of 10Tbps
(readily available in today’s gear) can process packets with just a handful
of cycles in the FIB Ternary Content Addressable Memory (TCAM) using
ASIC-assisted lookups. TCAM is the most expensive component you’re paying
for in such a router.  It’s not cheap,  but backbone routers don’t need
to be cheap. They just need to not be memory-constrained.

-mel via cell

On Jan 3, 2023, at 7:47 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:


https://github.com/dbarrosop/sir

I came across this over the weekend. Given that the project was abandoned
six years ago, are there any other efforts with a similar goal (more
intelligently placing routes into FIBs of low-FIB capacity devices?



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>





Current thread: