mailing list archives
Re: Routing vs Switching (was Re: Another UUNET Explanation)
From: Larry Vaden <vaden () texoma net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 07:41:15 -0500
At 01:49 AM 7/2/97 -0400, Sean M. Doran wrote:
The idea is to conserve the amount of work any given
router has to do with respect to convergence, since that's
a poorly-scalable hot-spot.
In the past the hot-spot may have been the amount of
traffic through a box, such that so few fat interfaces
could be used that it was economically compelling to move
that particular load into some sort of L2 switch and take
the lumps wrt inherent routing scalability problems and
the lack of conservation of configuration effort.
Since there are existence proofs that this hot spot is now
no longer economically insurmountable, and some much
crunchier boxes are on the near horizon, the argument for
using smart L2 fabrics at all is becoming weaker.
We're involved in a discussion on pagan () apnic net about whether the
Internet can afford to have a bunch of small multi-homed ISPs connected to
the net with PI /19s.
IMHO, there is not adequate participation by folks of your level of expertise.
Would you join the discussion please? While I suspect you are subscribed
to the list, I'll be glad to forward recent posts if you so desire.
I appreciate your consideration of the matter and your time.
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365
<http://www.texoma.net> fax 903-868-8551
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Nathan Stratton (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Ehud Gavron (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Martin J. Hannigan (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Steve Mansfield (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation jprovo (Jul 02)
RE: Another UUNET Explanation Chad Skidmore (Jul 02)
RE: Another UUNET Explanation Chris A. Icide (Jul 02)