RE: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
Andre,
Andre Oppermann wrote: We see a very common occurence here. The moment an open and very competitive market has matured, the (remaining) players start (whether implicit or explicit) to hinder new entrancies into the market. This is either done by denial of (direct) access or policy barriers.
You get it backwards. It is in the best interest of the router cartel to continue riding Moore's law forever and end up with a billion entries in the routing table which would allow them to keep renewing the installed router base every other year because naturally they cap memory and CPU in every model for the sole of being able to sell you a stinkin' new one two years later. And yes I am a stockholder of the router cartel. The reason they say they can't guarantee being able to ride Moore's law is because they see a risk that it happens. The very fact that they are actually looking at alternatives to Moore is worrisome. Michel.
Michel Py wrote:
Andre,
Andre Oppermann wrote: We see a very common occurence here. The moment an open and very competitive market has matured, the (remaining) players start (whether implicit or explicit) to hinder new entrancies into the market. This is either done by denial of (direct) access or policy barriers.
You get it backwards. It is in the best interest of the router cartel to continue riding Moore's law forever and end up with a billion entries in the routing table which would allow them to keep renewing the installed router base every other year because naturally they cap memory and CPU in every model for the sole of being able to sell you a stinkin' new one two years later. And yes I am a stockholder of the router cartel.
The reason they say they can't guarantee being able to ride Moore's law is because they see a risk that it happens. The very fact that they are actually looking at alternatives to Moore is worrisome.
No, it's only hot air. Why don't they claim to look at alternatives to 10Gig (and 100Gig) Ethernet? After all it's a damn high packet per second rate they have to sustain to do wirespeed... And doing just 1Gig is so much easier and don't have to develope any new chips. It's all already done. Yea, why not just fire all engineers. We don't need them anyway. There is nothing new to be developed. The limit is reached! There is no freaking way that a limit on routing table processing table power has been reached when no such limit is claimed for the packet forwarding rate. I don't care if they have to develop ASICs for that purpose too. BTW, you've shown me one statement (actually it's more of a thought, and we don't see the context of the slide) from one little Juniper engineer. I might get just remotely worried if all CTOs of all router manufactors (who claim to have real backbone/core routers with full ISP useable BGP) write in an SEC filing for their company that they've reached the end and limit of router development (or at least of the control plane functionality). Take a deep breath and then hold it... until... until... until... you take another one... -- Andre
Hi, On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 01:00:50AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: [..]
There is no freaking way that a limit on routing table processing table power has been reached when no such limit is claimed for the packet forwarding rate. I don't care if they have to develop ASICs for that purpose too.
OK, so you have made your point known. All the technical worries people have been voicing are just lies driven by ugly monopolistic tendencies. How exactly does this help us in the current context? What are your answers to the question on the table: RIPE-261? What are your answers to how a global IPv6 policy and an AS number policy should look like? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54837 (54495) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:20:07PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
You get it backwards. It is in the best interest of the router cartel to continue riding Moore's law forever and end up with a billion entries in the routing table which would allow them to keep renewing the installed router base every other year because naturally they cap memory and CPU in every model for the sole of being able to sell you a stinkin' new one two years later. And yes I am a stockholder of the router cartel.
This depends of your choice of vendor. Vendor J's routers took "only" a 266MHz CPU and 256M RAM (please correct me if I'm wrong here with the historic data) a couple of years back, but now you can put a new routing engine with 600MHz and 2G RAM into them without buying a whole new router and interfaces. And I guess when the next generation of REs comes out, you can put them into all boxes down to the smallest one [of the series] as well. People might want to consider such things in their shopping checklist. Not every vendor plays those games (to this extend). Regards, Daniel
participants (4)
-
Andre Oppermann -
Daniel Roesen -
Gert Doering -
Michel Py