Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Dino,

> >>> Perhaps we should first agree that there is a need a *short term*
> >>> solution for both IPv4 and IPv6. The following (from Tony's e-mail
> >>> on 5/26/2008) is relevant to the discussion on whether there is
> >>> such a need:
> >>>
> >>>  Well, Ross Callon has been quoted as saying that the Juniper
> >>>  implementation will have no problems up through many millions
> >>>  of routes.
> >>>
> >>>  Now, conceptually, that could happen tomorrow.  However, at the
> >>>  current growth rates, that's likely to be many years.
> >>
> >> The routing table size problem is not the only problem.
> >
> > Good. So, at least we seems to agree that we do not need LISP
> > to deal with the routing table size.
> 
> No, you didn't read the sentence carefully, I said "not the only  
> problem". There is problem with any database that gets too large.  
> Yakov, the vendor side of it is one thing and most of our products can  
> support large tables. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried  
> about the increase in OpEx and control plane performance for the  
> operators.

Wrt OpEx how exactly does LISP going to reduce it, and who are the
parties that are going to see that reduction ?

Wrt control plane performance, what are the problems that LISP is
going to solve ? And if there are already existing solutions to
these problems, then why LISP's solution is better ?

Yakov.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg