Date Sent: 24-SEP-1995 18:03:39

Noel wrote:

<Let's see, this argument has now been had on CIDRD, Big-Internet, Com-Priv,
and now it seems to have struck NANOG. Anyone care to guess how many more
mailing lists we can have the same debate one? This is really tedious, stupid,
and wasteful, everyone.>


(although 2^18 is still probably too big). The limit might have to move up
if we fill the routing tables with /18's...

Let's say we did have an absolute limit of /18s and 2^18 entries.
2^18 entries of 32 bytes each is 16Mb, which is almost within the
capacity of a Cisco 2500. (Well, Ok, CISCO would do something clever
about not storing the complete net and mask given that it would never
be more than /18 for external networks.)

Why is this a problem?