IP routing has an scaling advantage over call setup. Call setup can
take advantage of the lowest loaded path at the time of setup,
providing a better chance to load balance (ala PNNI).
The Pluris load-balanding approach allows gradual shifting of load
between pipes while doing native IP routing.
The VC table
has a speed forwarding advantage over the IP radix tree.
The upper levels of the radix tree fit nicely in L1 cache,
so the real advantage of VC table is far smaller.
tree may have a space advantage due to aggregation.
Radix tree is O(log n) from size of the network. (n is the
number of hosts). VC table is O(n), at least at some switches.
That in a
nutshell is the IP vs ATM flamewar (did I miss anything - ommisions
private mail unless it was major).
Nah, it is much funnier. I plan to publish my comments on the issue
at Pluris web site shortly.
The interest in IP switching
(CSRs, tag switching, IP switching proposal de jour) comes from a
desire to combine the best of the two.
What happened to K.I.S.S.?