Re: An idea: GxSE

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 15:32 27/06/01, Jon (Taz) Mischo wrote:
>>         Right, so I'd much rather use that ICMP message, work with any
>> IGP, not change any IGP, and not put any extra gorp in the IGP.
>
>As a former Network Engineer for a few large networks (including one of
>the largest ISPs in the history of the US), I can tell you I'd tolerate a
>new directive in an IGP better than a whole slew of ICMP messages to every
>host every time Joe Blow's route flaps.

        I believe that you believe that.  

        I also think that Enterprise network engineers often view 
network issues VERY differently than backbone network engineers.
Neither is right or wrong necessarily.  The network contexts are really
different between a small enterprise, a large enterprise, and any
backbone.

>ummm?  I don't think you understand GxSE.  

        Remind me again, what is the filename on your Internet Draft ? :-)

>>         I will note that I'm truly not worried about a router 
>> performing the rewrite over say 10 Gbps Ethernet uplink to an ISP 
>> at full line rate.  Forwarding ASICs are your friend.  Other folks 
>> mileage might vary of course...
>
>Heh.  The point is that ASIC changes mean hardware changes.  
>That's even more slowly adopted.  

        I'd be startled if multiple vendors couldn't do address
rewriting already.  It uses roughly the same hardware logic as NAT,
so if one has a partially programmable forwarding engine and 
thought about NAT, one might well have the capability in the
ASICs already deployed.  Different folks mileage will vary of course.

Ran
rja@Inet.org