Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2529)	4/16/2001 3:42:29 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, I think they are unrelated. The scaling problems associated with unicast or multicast forwarding are quite different from those associated with routing information and policy. However, neither problem is trivial. The main problem being discussed with BGP involves scalability associated with the explosive growth of IPv4 prefixes. The simultaneous emergence of multicast and a potential overlay of IPv6 and multicast-v6 will only make this problem worse. BGP-4 has been extended with multiprotocol facilities that are called address families - the first deployed was for IPv4 multicast which is why some folks think of MBGP as simply multicast-BGP. This is erroneous - it can also handle IPv6 and others. The algorithmic issue is how do you converge when doing so may involve the transmission of hundreds of thousands of prefixes? One can easily imagine a prefix situation in the not too distant future: IPv4 280,000 IPv4 Mcst 50,000 IPv6 50,000 IPv6 Mcst 10,000 as IPv4 stabalizes (a wish) v6 will take off, so these are optimistic numbers. Now if some processors today are dying at 150,000 prefixes - what kind of power is it going to take to run the Internet in 2 years? How about 5? This is where the concern comes from. Lots of solutions are being discussed, but meanwhile we work on optimizing what we have - BGP. John