Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Baldur Norddahl]

Except we might very well reach 1+ million routes soon without accepting
longer prefixes than /24. Also route updates is a concern - do I really
need to be informed every time someone on the other end of the world resets
a link?

On 3 October 2015 at 12:57, William Waites  wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:42:01 +0200, Baldur Norddahl <
> baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > 2 million routes will not be enough if we go full /27. This is
> > not a scalable solution. Something else is needed to provide
> > multihoming for small networks (LISP?).
>
> It's not too far off though. One way of looking at it is, for each
> extra bit we allow, we potentially double the table size. So with 500k
> routes and a /24 limit now, we might expect 4 million with /27. Not
> exactly because it depends strongly on the distribution of prefix
> lengths, but probably not a bad guess.
>
> Also there are optimisations that I wonder if the vendors are doing to
> preserve TCAM such as aggregating adjacent networks with the same next
> hop into the supernet. That would mitigate the impact of wanton
> deaggregation at least and the algorithm doesn't look too hard. Do the
> big iron vendors do this?
>
> -w
>
> --
> William Waites   |  School of Informatics
>http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/   | University of Edinburgh
>  https://hubs.net.uk/ |  HUBS AS60241
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[William Waites]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:42:01 +0200, Baldur Norddahl  
said:

> 2 million routes will not be enough if we go full /27. This is
> not a scalable solution. Something else is needed to provide
> multihoming for small networks (LISP?).

It's not too far off though. One way of looking at it is, for each
extra bit we allow, we potentially double the table size. So with 500k
routes and a /24 limit now, we might expect 4 million with /27. Not
exactly because it depends strongly on the distribution of prefix
lengths, but probably not a bad guess.

Also there are optimisations that I wonder if the vendors are doing to
preserve TCAM such as aggregating adjacent networks with the same next
hop into the supernet. That would mitigate the impact of wanton
deaggregation at least and the algorithm doesn't look too hard. Do the
big iron vendors do this?

-w

--
William Waites   |  School of Informatics
   http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/   | University of Edinburgh
 https://hubs.net.uk/ |  HUBS AS60241

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


pgpQpvBY0HsM0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Baldur Norddahl]

2 million routes will not be enough if we go full /27. This is not a
scalable solution. Something else is needed to provide multihoming for
small networks (LISP?).

Regards,

Baldur


On 3 October 2015 at 11:03, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <yous...@720.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> FYI, newer linecard models from BROCADE can hold 2 million routes.
> Probably others can do that now too.
>
> Disclaimer : I'm not working for them or defending them, just setting an
> information straight.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
>
>
> > Le 3 oct. 2015 à 10:33, Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at> a écrit :
> >
> > As mentioned before: even the new SUP2T from Cisco is limited to 1Mio
> routes ...
> >
> > There are MANY other vendors with the same limitations: Juniper,
> Brocade, etc
> >
> > And the solt equipment is not the 99USD trash from the super market at
> the corner ...
> >
> >
> > Jürgen Jaritsch
> > Head of Network & Infrastructure
> >
> > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
> >
> > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
> >
> > E-Mail: j...@anexia.at
> > Web: http://www.anexia.at
> >
> > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT
> U63216601
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Max Tulyev [max...@netassist.ua]
> > Received: Samstag, 03 Okt. 2015, 9:11
> > To: nanog@nanog.org [nanog@nanog.org]
> > Subject: Re: AW: /27 the new /24
> >
> > Which routers? DIR-300 with OpenWRT/Quagga? :)
> >
> > I think all above-the-trash level routers supports >1M routes, isn't it?
> >
> >> On 02.10.15 17:45, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> this would at least help to get rid of many old routing engines around
> the world :) ... or people would keep their "learn nothing smaller than
> /24" filters in place. Also an option - but not for companies who act as an
> IP transit provider.
> >>
> >>
> >> best regards
> >>
> >> Jürgen Jaritsch
> >> Head of Network & Infrastructure
> >>
> >> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
> >>
> >> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> >> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
> >>
> >> E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com
> >> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
> >>
> >> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> >> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> >> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT
> U63216601
> >>
> >>
> >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Justin
> Wilson - MTIN
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 16:32
> >> An: NANOG
> >> Betreff: /27 the new /24
> >>
> >> I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were
> talking about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes
> smaller than a /24.  A few were saying they thought about going down to as
> small as a /27.  This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not
> having even a /24 of IPv4 space.  The first argument is against this is the
> potential bloat the global routing table could have.  Many folks have
> worked hard for years to summarize and such. others were saying they would
> do a /26 or bigger.
> >>
> >> However, what do we do about the new networks which want to do BGP but
> only can get small allocations from someone (either a RIR or one of their
> upstreams)?
> >>
> >> Just throwing that out there. Seems like an interesting discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin Wilson
> >> j...@mtin.net
> >>
> >> ---
> >> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> >> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
> >>
> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> >> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> >
>

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr]

Hi,

FYI, newer linecard models from BROCADE can hold 2 million routes. Probably 
others can do that now too.

Disclaimer : I'm not working for them or defending them, just setting an 
information straight.

My 2 cents.



> Le 3 oct. 2015 à 10:33, Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at> a écrit :
> 
> As mentioned before: even the new SUP2T from Cisco is limited to 1Mio routes 
> ...
> 
> There are MANY other vendors with the same limitations: Juniper, Brocade, etc
> 
> And the solt equipment is not the 99USD trash from the super market at the 
> corner ...
> 
> 
> Jürgen Jaritsch
> Head of Network & Infrastructure
> 
> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
> 
> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
> 
> E-Mail: j...@anexia.at
> Web: http://www.anexia.at
> 
> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Tulyev [max...@netassist.ua]
> Received: Samstag, 03 Okt. 2015, 9:11
> To: nanog@nanog.org [nanog@nanog.org]
> Subject: Re: AW: /27 the new /24
> 
> Which routers? DIR-300 with OpenWRT/Quagga? :)
> 
> I think all above-the-trash level routers supports >1M routes, isn't it?
> 
>> On 02.10.15 17:45, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> this would at least help to get rid of many old routing engines around the 
>> world :) ... or people would keep their "learn nothing smaller than /24" 
>> filters in place. Also an option - but not for companies who act as an IP 
>> transit provider.
>> 
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Jürgen Jaritsch
>> Head of Network & Infrastructure
>> 
>> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
>> 
>> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
>> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
>> 
>> E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com
>> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
>> 
>> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
>> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
>> 
>> 
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Justin Wilson - 
>> MTIN
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 16:32
>> An: NANOG
>> Betreff: /27 the new /24
>> 
>> I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking 
>> about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes smaller 
>> than a /24.  A few were saying they thought about going down to as small as 
>> a /27.  This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not having 
>> even a /24 of IPv4 space.  The first argument is against this is the 
>> potential bloat the global routing table could have.  Many folks have worked 
>> hard for years to summarize and such. others were saying they would do a /26 
>> or bigger.
>> 
>> However, what do we do about the new networks which want to do BGP but only 
>> can get small allocations from someone (either a RIR or one of their 
>> upstreams)?
>> 
>> Just throwing that out there. Seems like an interesting discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> Justin Wilson
>> j...@mtin.net
>> 
>> ---
>> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
>> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>> 
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
>> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> 

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Randy Bush]

> It's not too far off though. One way of looking at it is, for each
> extra bit we allow, we potentially double the table size.

that is math.  in reality

table size is proportional to

multihoming + traffic engineering

randy

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Max Tulyev]

Which routers? DIR-300 with OpenWRT/Quagga? :)

I think all above-the-trash level routers supports >1M routes, isn't it?

On 02.10.15 17:45, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this would at least help to get rid of many old routing engines around the 
> world :) ... or people would keep their "learn nothing smaller than /24" 
> filters in place. Also an option - but not for companies who act as an IP 
> transit provider.
> 
> 
> best regards
> 
> Jürgen Jaritsch
> Head of Network & Infrastructure
> 
> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
> 
> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
> 
> E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com 
> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com 
> 
> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
> 
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Justin Wilson - 
> MTIN
> Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 16:32
> An: NANOG
> Betreff: /27 the new /24
> 
> I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking 
> about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes smaller than 
> a /24.  A few were saying they thought about going down to as small as a /27. 
>  This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not having even a /24 
> of IPv4 space.  The first argument is against this is the potential bloat the 
> global routing table could have.  Many folks have worked hard for years to 
> summarize and such. others were saying they would do a /26 or bigger.  
> 
> However, what do we do about the new networks which want to do BGP but only 
> can get small allocations from someone (either a RIR or one of their 
> upstreams)?
> 
> Just throwing that out there. Seems like an interesting discussion.
> 
> 
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
> 
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
> 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> 

RE: AW: /27 the new /24

[Jürgen Jaritsch]

As mentioned before: even the new SUP2T from Cisco is limited to 1Mio routes ...

There are MANY other vendors with the same limitations: Juniper, Brocade, etc

And the solt equipment is not the 99USD trash from the super market at the 
corner ...


Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & Infrastructure

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
Telefax: +43-5-0556-500

E-Mail: j...@anexia.at
Web: http://www.anexia.at

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601


-Original Message-
From: Max Tulyev [max...@netassist.ua]
Received: Samstag, 03 Okt. 2015, 9:11
To: nanog@nanog.org [nanog@nanog.org]
Subject: Re: AW: /27 the new /24

Which routers? DIR-300 with OpenWRT/Quagga? :)

I think all above-the-trash level routers supports >1M routes, isn't it?

On 02.10.15 17:45, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this would at least help to get rid of many old routing engines around the 
> world :) ... or people would keep their "learn nothing smaller than /24" 
> filters in place. Also an option - but not for companies who act as an IP 
> transit provider.
>
>
> best regards
>
> Jürgen Jaritsch
> Head of Network & Infrastructure
>
> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
>
> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
>
> E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com
> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
>
> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Justin Wilson - 
> MTIN
> Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 16:32
> An: NANOG
> Betreff: /27 the new /24
>
> I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking 
> about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes smaller than 
> a /24.  A few were saying they thought about going down to as small as a /27. 
>  This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not having even a /24 
> of IPv4 space.  The first argument is against this is the potential bloat the 
> global routing table could have.  Many folks have worked hard for years to 
> summarize and such. others were saying they would do a /26 or bigger.
>
> However, what do we do about the new networks which want to do BGP but only 
> can get small allocations from someone (either a RIR or one of their 
> upstreams)?
>
> Just throwing that out there. Seems like an interesting discussion.
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
>

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Mike Hammett]

Hrm. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Jürgen Jaritsch"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:25:10 PM 
Subject: AW: /27 the new /24 

> Stop using old shit. 

Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works and 
you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks. 




Jürgen Jaritsch 
Head of Network & Infrastructure 

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH 

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 
Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 

E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com 
Web: http://www.anexia-it.com 

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler 
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- 
Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett 
Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38 
An: NANOG  
Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24 

Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small business 
with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big business with 
big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support big router. 

I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need to 
throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with the 
times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more power, 
space, heat, etc. efficient. 


I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco 
routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so they 
weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll be worse 
in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old setup consumed at 
most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in power... and is worse. 

Stop using old shit. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message - 

From: "William Herrin"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM 
Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router 
> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If 
> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have 
> any pity for them? 

Hi Mike, 

The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more 
precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) 
end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a 
general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). 
They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large 
routing tables at the same time. 

For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out 
https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see 
folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content 
Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and 
SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an 
O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural 
differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your 
$100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 
router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. 
That makes it expensive. 

Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the 
systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: 
http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html 

Regards, 
Bill Herrin 




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web:  

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Randy Bush]

> From: "Jürgen Jaritsch"  
> To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
>> Stop using old shit. 
> Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue
> works and you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade
> networks.

bingo!

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

[Mike Hammett]

A better truth may be that I have no idea about bureaucracies... which I'll 
happily admit to. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Jürgen Jaritsch"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:25:10 PM 
Subject: AW: /27 the new /24 

> Stop using old shit. 

Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works and 
you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks. 




Jürgen Jaritsch 
Head of Network & Infrastructure 

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH 

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 
Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 

E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com 
Web: http://www.anexia-it.com 

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler 
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- 
Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett 
Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38 
An: NANOG  
Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24 

Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small business 
with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big business with 
big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support big router. 

I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need to 
throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with the 
times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more power, 
space, heat, etc. efficient. 


I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco 
routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so they 
weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll be worse 
in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old setup consumed at 
most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in power... and is worse. 

Stop using old shit. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message - 

From: "William Herrin"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM 
Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router 
> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If 
> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have 
> any pity for them? 

Hi Mike, 

The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more 
precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) 
end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a 
general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). 
They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large 
routing tables at the same time. 

For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out 
https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see 
folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content 
Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and 
SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an 
O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural 
differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your 
$100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 
router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. 
That makes it expensive. 

Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the 
systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: 
http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html 

Regards, 
Bill Herrin 




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: