William Herrin wrote: > C) Big iron is either using massively parallel FIBs (many copies of > the radix tree) or they're using TCAM instead of DRAM, a specialized > tristate version of SRAM. In either case, you're talking 10 to 100 > times the cost, ten times the power consumption and ten times the heat > versus DRAM.
TCAM is a specialized version of CAM. CAM is much worse than SRAM. > A router handling 10M routes is achievable today if we're willing to > go back to $20k as the minimum cost BGP box. That's an order of > magnitude more than we have now and three orders of magnitude short of > where we need to be before we can stop sweating the prefix count. For 16M routes, we only need /24. With /24 aggregation, route look up is trivially easy with a 16M entry single chip SRAM every 3ns consuming 1W. That's why IPv4 or original IPv6 proposal with 8B address is much better than the current IPv6. Masataka Ohta