>We need to keep the routing tables synched up in all these >processors. One idea is to connect all these routers (processors) within the >router to form a complete IBGP mesh. But then this introduces scalability >issues which everyone is well aware of. What is the other alternative that >we have to keep all these routing engines synchronized.
Well...fundamentally, I'm not sure you have much in the way of alternatives. You could use a different synchronization protocol; but the scaling issues are likely to be the same as with BGP. (I'm assuming here that you're not planning on exposing the N processors to the outside BGP world separately.) Either way, you're passing messages around which update the routing table. One option would be a client/server system, where the clients forward all incoming BGP updates to the server, and the server maintains the routing table. This could work if you can devise a server-to-client protocol that the clients can interpret more cheaply than they interpet BGP. (The simplest way to do that, of course, is if all the processors are in a single box, and the clients can read the routing table directly out of memory.) This has the disadvantage of introducing a single point of failure. /==============================================================\ |John Stracke |Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own. | |==============================================================| |"Simply vanished--like an old oak table." --Lord Percy, _Black| |Adder II_ | \==============================================================/
