|> We already know that we're growing the table faster than |technology can keep |> up. That much is clear. | |Is that a falsifiable scientific theory or is it a consensus opinion |without quantitative grounding?
Worse, that's an opinion, with some quantitative grounding, held by an apparent minority. |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. More than something of a red herring, given that they are violently different generations of hardware, with very different levels of hardware optimization. The 7000, for example, was built before the networking industry was on to the ASIC bandwagon. Since we've transitioned from technology laggards to being near cutting edge, there have been some one time advances. |So no, the truth of the claim that we're growing the table faster than |technology can keep up is not at all clear. Fair enough. So, why do we keep debating this? We've been over this to death. The horse is dead already. For folks that feel that there's no problem, why not leave the rest of us in peace to do what we feel we need to do? Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
