Weekly Routing Table Report

Scott Weeks wrote:

I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the
above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA.

As you give no reference, let's rely on wikipedia

Scott Weeks wrote:

Yes, my apologies for no reference. Further, I have no URL to
point to as I read the book. (actual book; no e-something)

Here's something: http://pouzinsociety.org

as I can't find open access papers or something like that there,
let me stick to wikipedia.

Like the book, in the Wikipedia article you have to get through
or skip the first part. In the book, that's the first 5 or so
chapters. He just describes why, in his opinion, previous things
have failed and the way he does it turns a lot of folks off.

Another major misunderstanding of him is that he is not aware that
domain name with MX is application name and there are proposals
(though unnecessarily complicated) such as SRV to cover other
applications beyond SMTP. With SRV, non-default port numbers do not
have to be specified in URLs.

So, we already have application names of domain names and mapping
mechanism between names and addresses/port_numers of DNS.

E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant

That someone can not recognize relevance between something and the
E2E principle does not mean much.

IPv6 is/was a waste of time

True, but, the reason is because IPv4 Internet with DNS, TCP
and NAT is good enough.

That TCP identifies connections only by single source and destination
addresses is certainly a problem. But, the least painful solution
is to extend TCP to be able to identify connections by multiple

Properly designed NAT can save IP addresses a lot still keeping the
E2E transparency.

The RINA's fundamental principles are that computer
networking is just Inter-Process Communication or IPC,

That is a too much computer centric view not very
applicable to communications involving human beings,
where the E2E argument must often be applied to human
beings (true end) behind applications (tentative end
in a computer).

            Masataka Ohta

Did we all forget the size of the IPv6 table is nearing a milestone number in the DFZ? :wink:

It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes and consider what all of us accomplished together.
Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done.

Patrick W. Gilmore

(Okay pat the back of your local network engineer if you forgot.)
Aclamaciones, Cheers, À votre santé!

Nowadays boxes can easily take 5x the current 768 in
tcam and in control-plane -only sky is the limit, so for example there’s no
need for any clever RR infrastructure designs anymore to hold all the routes
in your AS control-plane.


If you have an older router that can only handle x number of routes in TCAM less than the current number of routes; what software are you using to keep it default free?
Or if the sky is really the limit, sell me your most or least expensive Tbps capable TCAM that will hold a routing table of 3M+ routes IPv4 and another 3M+ IPv6 without gimmicks or stipulations. (Low or high number of interfaces, small or god-sized box.)
Let me know why you like what you have, or what you want to have.

Be thankful for your network.

What’s in your rack?

Good Luck