On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > |> Seems not unreasonable to me. Since our current > |architecture can't support > |> that kind of multi-homing load, we're trying to avoid the load. > | > |Now wait a minute; Brian just told us that we can't say with any > |scientific or engineering certainty what kind of multihoming load the > |current architecture can or can't support. Which is it? Can we? Or > |can't we? > > > We already know that we're growing the table faster than technology can keep > up. That much is clear.
Tony, Is that a falsifiable scientific theory or is it a consensus opinion without quantitative grounding? Devil's advocate: The well-grounded trend lines I posted suggest that the BGP table size at the edge of what we can build cost-effectively may be compounding at a rate of 40% per year while the actual size of the BGP table may only be compounding at around 25% per year. If true, one consequence should be that the minimum cost of an edge device capable of participating in the BGP backbone has fallen significantly. This appears to be the case; a $1400 Cisco 2811 is now capable of interacting with the full BGP table while 15 years ago you had to spend $60k on a Cisco 7000 to seriously think about a full BGP table. So no, the truth of the claim that we're growing the table faster than technology can keep up is not at all clear. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
