nanog mailing list archives
Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 18:03:28 -0400
General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom. Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom. Have a good weekend Bill. On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:48 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software router.Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs". The LU block on early gen Trios was a dedicated ASIC (LU by itself, thenconsolidated slightly) , then later gen Trio put everything on a single chip, but again dedicated ASIC. Hi Tom, For clarity, general purpose CPU refers to an architecture not an implementation. It's capable of running arbitrary computer software and has the typical functions like loading and saving registers, an adder, bit shifts, etc. The CPU in a Raspberry Pi is also part of a dedicated ASIC that does wifi, packet switching and a bunch of other stuff. It's still a CPU. Compare to a TCAM which is purpose built to match input bit patterns and is capable of nothing else. I suppose the PPEs in the Trio are more like GPUs than CPUs - more limited instruction sets but higher parallelism. However, they still follow the cache pattern where the frequently used parts of the FIB tree are in a fast SRAM cache and the remainder is in slower DRAM where it can be loaded into SRAM at the occasional need. The FIB size limit before cache thrashing sets in and cuts the PPS is softer than the limit with a TCAM but it's still there. Compare to a TCAM which uses a tristate ram rather than the normal two-state sram. Yes? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?, (continued)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Matthew Petach (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 28)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 28)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 28)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Saku Ytti (Sep 28)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Tom Beecher (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Tom Beecher (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Tom Beecher (Sep 29)
- RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Tony Wicks (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Tom Beecher (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? William Herrin (Sep 29)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Mark Tinka (Sep 30)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 30)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 28)
- Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 29)