Subject: Re: Routed, anyone?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no>
Date: 03/15/1996 23:27:45
> Neil J. McRae writes:
> >It is then it needs to be. Routeing updates is what is killing
> >the internet at this time, Cisco's can't handle theses sort of
> >updates in any great quantity.
> I beg to differ on this point. First of all, the routing
> updates that are traveling over the net make up a very small
> fraction of the total amount of data being sent over the 'net.
> As far as cisco's not being able to handle the updates, I think
> it has been displayed that they can handle that kind of load
> quite well. Granted re-calculating routes does take a good
> chunk out of a CPU, most of the backbone routers nowadays can
> handle it without much trouble.
I think this has been answered by Sean Doran, but to make it
perfectly clear I'd like to add my $0.02:
A single cisco router might handle a few route transitions, no
problem. But think what would happen in the busier routers on
the Internet if all the dialups of the world cause an external
route to be propagated or withdrawn whenever a user dials in or
disconnects: the number of route changes seen in these routers
would simply be enormous, and the CPU time spent to evaluate
routing policies and to propagate route changes would be quite
considerable. So "Don't Do That, Then" and stick to Sean's
advice instead for how to configure the external routing. (Note,
it is usually the ISP or one of his upstream providers which
takes care of the external routing.)
But we all knew that already, right? ;-)