I think you are forgetting that these routes need to be stored in a data
structure that allows fast queries as well as fast inserts and deletes.
That index takes space, and your "sh ip bgp" doesn't show you that.
Yeah, let's store the routing table in a linked list!
-Phil
Phillip Vandry wrote:
I think you are forgetting that these routes need to be stored in a data
structure that allows fast queries as well as fast inserts and deletes.
That index takes space, and your "sh ip bgp" doesn't show you that.Yeah, let's store the routing table in a linked list!
Actually, that isn't that crazy... There's quite a bit of silicon out there that can
read link lists very fast (fast enough to paint video frames as an example)... But I
suppose we're talking about processor-based (software) routing for the most part..
Ryan Brooks
ryan@inc.net
Sorry, I did not want to blame any developer; I only notified that
even text presentation of this tables get less memory then the structures
in the router. Due to Bill (MS really can't work withouth the heaps of the
memory) memory became the cheap gift this days (talking about the memory
for the BGP tables, not the fast switch buffers memory).
-
Regards, alex.
Doesn't Livingston/Lucent claim to be able to handle several full views in
32mb? What are they leaving out?