"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
> Not, you understand, that I think the global routing table should be
> kept in control,
Obviously that was a typo -- I think everyone agrees that the global
routing table *must* be kept in control...
There is a rather large contingency of folks who feel the current
paradigms of global routing necessitate a table growth explosion.
Moving away from a BFR to a distributed switching system does have
merits. The assumption for this model is that the routing engine
for the switching systems grows exponentially.
I don't really buy into this point of view, but it is there...