Matthew Dillon wrote: > Presumably if one really had 31 cpus he would also have sufficient > memory and not the measily 64M-1G that we specify when we run the > vkernel. Plus I don't think a 31-cpu machine would be used to route a > full BGP table. When Jeff and I discussed this last year we figured > that it was a moot issue.
At first "full BGP table" isn't the largest one in the world. I have seen routers which have more than million routes in the table, providers can do funny things in their AS's ;). And about many-many routes in 31-cpu machine ... depends what benefits would be. I can easily think^Wdream about configs where I'd love to. But yes, I don't see much benefit from all of them having _one_ large routing table. Much more I'd love to see them having different tables - thinking about virtual routers (and multiple routing tables in them). -- Hasso Tepper
