They're going after markets that don't have much money in the first place. They realize internally, though would never admit, that giving away software to people who wouldn't buy it otherwise doesn't cost them money. Externally, they'll say how they're doing such good things, and say how "We gave away a billion dollars in software last year.", but that wasn't a billion dollars that they could have had otherwise.
This is basically the same as the RIAA giving me a bunch of MP3 files of music I wouldn't have bought anyhow and claiming they gave me a thousand dollars of music.
Or like me saying I have a baseball card that's worth $100,000. It's only worth that if someone will buy it. If no one will buy it, then it's a piece of cardboard with a picture on it.
The moral of the story is that they're giving away something that costs them nothing to a market group that wouldn't have bought their stuff otherwise, and keeping Free software out.
Actually, 'peers' set up peering relationships between each other, not only 'the big boys'. The Tier-1 ISPs have specific peering requirements that other ISPs have to meet (regarding the size of the other's backbone, traffic ratios between both networks, many other factors, and a whole lot of legal crap). Once those peering reqs. are met, then usually connections will be set up in as many places as are needed to sustain traffic flow. The main costs of high-bw internet lines are port costs (for the physical port on the router) and line costs. Usually in peering, both isps throw out their port costs, and then split the line costs (1 peer buys local loops for 1 ckt, the other gets the next one, etc). This provides tranit between the two networks at close to 0 cost for both providers. Now, if ISPs dont meet other's peering requirements, the smaller ISP either have to have a transit provider (a provider which will allow them to route traffic through their network to reach other ISPs'), which is very expensive, or they will have to purchase lines/ports from the large ISP, be they transit or not. Some companies have very open and lenient peering policies, and thus foster more open connectivity on the internet. However, an increasing number of ISPs are tightening their policies in an attempt to make more money.//Phizzy
First, these (and all core routers) have redundant power supplies. Second, the cords are screw-down DC power, which aren't going anywhere. Third, the front-panel throughput is a measure of how much traffic the line cards (ports on which all data enters and exits the router) can push, whereas the rear-panel throughput is a measure of how much the backplane can push between the (8) different line cards.
Either way you'll pay for a service you are using. If you read the article, you would have heard all about how this is going to cost billions in infrastructure and eq upgrades, and about how unlimited use of this technology would likely impair things significantly, as people tend to use more bandwidth when they don't pay for it, and this _is_ a shared media. Someone has to pay for the upgrades.. and I tend to doubt that the telcos are going to spend billions of dollars for your approval alone. They are businesses, after all..
How many computers do you have on this lan? Why do you think you need to 'own' the IP addresses? First off, you don't even need to own ANY ip addressed to do multihoming. You could NAT all of you LAN boxes up into the single/30 advertisement that your ISP(s) are going to give you for the serial interface on your router, and then have the ISP advertise that out to the 'net, and voila, you have multihoming. When one provider goes down, you can use your IGP to route across the other, OR, if you wanted to go a litte more high-class, you could buy a large router, and take full BGP tables from both providers, and differentiate intelligently based on the preferences sent on the routes. Now, if you don't want to do NAT, and there are a whole slew of good reasons you wouldn't, why are you hung up on ownership of these IP addresses? Why won't you let the IP-allocation process work like it's supposed to? If APNIC had to allocate IPs to every small business in the region it's responsible for, it would take 3 years to get IPs from them. Buy a block of IPs from your ISP(s), and if you transition to another ISP, re-number your network. Or, if you don't wanna go the cheap way, you CAN buy portable IP space from providers. Many of them buy whole Class As just for this purpose, it's just that you're going to have to pay more for these IPs than you would otherwise, as you should, since the ISP's netblocks can become non-contiguous if you leave. As far as your questions about IPv6 and router memory, the internet routing table is well up above 100k routes already, and there are many routers out there that are already having problems dealing with tables of this size. Many Cisco boxes will die in the near future if not upgraded, as their old routing engines run out of memory, and despite the fact that PC memory is cheap, router memory often is not. Especially when you have to install it on the tens of thousands of routers any decently sized ISP will have. IPv6 isn't really even a factor yet.. and when it is, many routers are going to need heavy upgrading (software, hardware, etc) to deal with it, which is why so many ISPs aren't rushing out to do it. So buy some portable IP space, get yourself multihomed, and go buy a good BGP book.
yeah.. that, and StarOffice eats all your ram, not to mention your desktop when you run it.;)
The test I've run of SunPCI has convinced our management to do away w/ separate NT/2000 systems when we move to a new building in april, and just outfit everyone w/ Ultra 5s, SunPCI cards and dual-head monitors..
I am actually typing this comment on a Sun Microsystems SUNPCI card.. It's a celeron, I beleive a 466mhz or so, w/ 128m of ram. It has onboard video if you want to use an external monitor or can use the sun's native card if you want to run it windowed, ditto w/ ethernet. I've been using the card for about 3 months now, and other than some instability w/ SunOS 2.6 (which dissapeared in 2.8), I haven't had problems with it.. you can copy/paste between the Sun window and the 'PC' window, which is very helpful.. and though we are running WIN2000 on it (ok.. so shoot me) I don't see any reason why you couldn't run linux on it if you really wanted too.. All-in-all, the card is pretty badass..
Where is Legend of the Red Dragon? Can we not include our BBS Door-game brethren in this fine list?
and how is Counterstrike not in the top ten.. tisk tisk.
//Phizzy
Re:It's still broken, but they're redundant
on
When A Cable Dies
·
· Score: 2
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone read the press release and understand the situation. If I had mod points I would use them on this post. I work for an ISP who has multiple OC12s and OC3s on this network, and we didn't lose connectivity to our site in Sydney, we just had reduced capacity. That, and I can't stand the smarmy ppl talking about how the network promised 100% redundancy. You have to do maintanence on a network sometime, and shit happens sometimes when you are doing it, and people are just gonna have to live with it. Thanks for adding perspective.
Come on now.. do you think this is seriously going to affect the internet in any palpitable way whatsoever? Any ISP worth it's weight in fiber has large (OC3, 12, 48, 192) international interconnects, and LOTS of them. The point of the internet is that things are generally supposed to be location-independant. It doesn't matter if you're sending packets across domestic, terrestrial circuits from SanFran->NY, at 80ms or so, or from EU->NY at 100ms or so. Your downloads are going to look roughly the same, as does the capacity on those links. _Maybe_ you'll flood some smaller ISP's tunnel which is underprovisioned and oversubscribed but come on.. have a little more faith in the infrastructure. An undersea link is sometimes even cheaper to run than domestic bandwidth, since you're just sinking wires to a few hundred (or thousand) ft, and not burying cable across developed land. So don't expect this to be noticed by anyone.
If you read further back into the NANOG list, you can see that about a month and a half ago, C&W sent out notices to all of the ISPs that it de-peered (it wasn't only PSI). So PSInet knew this was going to happen a few months ago, and did not take action to get another Transit provider, so that C&W customers could reach into their network and vice-versa. This hurts both ISPs, and anyone who is trying to reach PSI. While things are probably not going so well over at PSI, obviously, with them filing Chapter 11, they knew this was coming, and didn't act, and now are trying to give C&W a black eye. Peering agreements are created so that networks of roughly equal size can trade routes/data at minimal cost to both ISPs, but when one of those ISPs grows, and the other shrinks, the agreements must be re-considered. This is a fairly normal thing in the ISP world, and the only reason that this is creating problems and news is that PSInet didn't act to find a transit provider, or work out a transit agreement with C&W.
Mac addresses are relatively local. When your computer sends out a packet, it wraps the data in a layer 2 header, w/ the Src and Dst MAC addresses, and then a layer 3 header, w/ dest and src IP addresses. Now, say you're sending a request to/... since your computer has no way of knowing/.'s MAC address, and no need to, it uses the MAC address for the gateway that the host has assigned to it. Once this packet goes across the ethernet to the gateway router, the router strips the layer 3 header, leaves it pretty much intact, looks at the layer 2 header, sees it's mac address, and knows it has to forward it. When it does forward it, it uses the MAC address of the next-hop host as the dest MAC address and it's outbound port's MAC address as the source, and the same thing happens at the next-hop, all the way down the line and back. SO, the lesson is the MAC address need only be unique within a broadcast domain, and the broadcast domain ends at the router. And besides, IPv6 isn't going to change the layer 2 addressing, we'll still be using (likely the same) Mac addresses.
Plus, I don't see anywhere you can buy internet-enabled garage doors OR fridges. So all of this is pointless, just like the whining about IPv6.
I'm frankly getting sick of all of this IPv6 hype. With NAT, BGP and classless routing protocols, IPv4 still has plenty of life left in it. The change to IPv6 isn't going to happen soon, and it doesn't need to. Besides, if you really want to run IPv6 right now, just to prove that you are so much r3373r than your sys-admin buddies, go ahead and run it, and tunnel it through IPv4. It's perfectly feasible, and probably what early-adopters of IPv6 are going to have to do anyways, because as far as I know, there isn't a single backbone provider who is even seriously discussing implementing IPv6 in their network. We have loads of IPv4 space left, the IPv4 network that we're all using to post on this great site is obviously working quite well, and a load of new address space isn't going to help the internet in any really useful way. IPv6 is going to be a whole lot of work, a lot of hassles, a lot of connection problems, and with little short-term gains. Everyone always preaches not to upgrade your kernel if there isn't anything you're going to gain from it, so why upgrade your logical network addresses if it's not going to provide better service to you? IPv6 will come, but not until we need it to.
are you smoking crack? I have a GF2 GTS w/ 64 megs, and we also have a voodoo5 w/ 64 megs in my house, both running off athlons, mine an 850, the other an 800.. and at 800x600, FSAA 2x, in OpenGL, they look roughly the same, but the GeForce has 10-20 more FPS (this is in counterstrike).. when you push them to 1024x768, the V5 drops significantly in FPS.. as does the GF2, but not as noticeably.
Still, why would you use a GF2 in 4x mode? I see using the V5 in 4x, b/c that's what the voodoo chips are good at.. looking pretty, w/ some hit in FPS.. the GF2s are better at high-fps, low FSAA applications.. don't try to make the GF2 look like the V5.
well, if you had read the article, you would know that it takes standard inputs, so if you have $10k sitting around, you'll be able to play quake/watch pr0n/etc on it just as well as anything else.
And since it's a wearable, the term 'implant' is hardly appropriate.
god damn.. you ppl get uppity about the smallest of things..
I said BGP could be either advanced distance vector or path vector. I personally think path vector makes more sense, but since BGP is similar in concept to other DV protocols (EIGRP), I included both as a helper..
Cisco actually refers to BGP in it's BCSN (ACRC) course as an "Advanced Distance Vector" protocol.
BGP is *EITHER* a path-vector protocol or an "advanced distance vector protocol", as Cisco's literature (BSCN) clearly states. I have had this argument with other CCIEs, and there was an argument to be made, without a really clear-cut answer.
Every time a router receives an LSA, which has to change it's Link-state Database, it _does_ have to re-run SPF, which is very processor intensive.. anyways.. I was just trying to explain BGP vs OSPF to the person who asked... and yes, of course, you can do route summarization, but are you trying to say that you can run OSPF on very-large networks? I'd like to see you try.
2 full routing tables on a 2611? Maybe in 1994. We (as in the ISP I work for, the 2nd largest ISP in the world) suggest at least 64M/view, preferrably 128M/view.. I'd like to see a 2611 w/ 128M of ram, let alone 256. It would melt.
What happens if you are single-homed w/ you own AS? You should be shot. There is NO reason to have your own AS, unless you are multi-homed. PERIOD. You should have your ISP set up a static route and inject that into their BGP w/ a network statement.. I'd love to talk to some of your customers, with their 2611s, advertising one class C and getting a full routing table across their 128K line. They must have great performance.
and I already have my CCNA, thank you, and have taken ICND, Advanced BGP, and BSCN (ACRC), and I work with BGP and ISIS (a real IGP) every day in the real world..
OSPF is a link-state protocol, rather than a distance vector protocol.. these are the two basic types of protocols. Basically, LS is like having a map of routes, from which you can determine the best path to a given destination, whereas distance vector is like having directions.. When Link State Databased get really large, they get unmanageable.. if you tried to run the internet on OSPF, every time a route changed, you would have to recalculate the LSD into the routing table, using the shortest-path algorithm, which is very processor-intensive.. and besides, since you have to keep a LS database as well a a routing table, you would need roughly 2x the memory.. BGP is a distance vector protocol (well.. some would say path vector, but we won't go there), which scales VERY well, so it is what is being used on the internet, but it is such a robust protocol, you need a large router to run it, and it only really matters if you have 2 different paths to take, which BGP can differentiate between (multi-homed), rather than just one connection.. (single-homed).. when you are single-homed, BGP is just a waste.
Ok.. so I'd like to have ethernet or fibre into my house, but I _still_ wouldn't need to use OSPF or BGP. OSPF is a medium-to-large network routing protocol, which cannot be used on the internet, and is not suited for home use unless you have a _REALLY LARGE_ network at home, otherwise it would be a waste or resources.. static routing with a defualt route is much more efficient. And unless you plan on having more than one 100mb eth line or fibre line pulled into your house, and buying a router which can handle something around 200,000 routes (the current internet routing table x2, one view from each provider), the BGP isn't going to do you any good.. BGP is only helpful for a multi-homing situation.
SO.. do you research on your routing protocols.. you'd more likely need PPPoverEthernet for dummies, or maybe Routing for Dummies.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going after markets that don't have much money in the first place. They realize internally, though would never admit, that giving away software to people who wouldn't buy it otherwise doesn't cost them money. Externally, they'll say how they're doing such good things, and say how "We gave away a billion dollars in software last year.", but that wasn't a billion dollars that they could have had otherwise.
This is basically the same as the RIAA giving me a bunch of MP3 files of music I wouldn't have bought anyhow and claiming they gave me a thousand dollars of music.
Or like me saying I have a baseball card that's worth $100,000. It's only worth that if someone will buy it. If no one will buy it, then it's a piece of cardboard with a picture on it.
The moral of the story is that they're giving away something that costs them nothing to a market group that wouldn't have bought their stuff otherwise, and keeping Free software out.
prefer our cars to be made of metal.
//Phizzy
www.volvocars.com
Actually, 'peers' set up peering relationships between each other, not only 'the big boys'. The Tier-1 ISPs have specific peering requirements that other ISPs have to meet (regarding the size of the other's backbone, traffic ratios between both networks, many other factors, and a whole lot of legal crap). Once those peering reqs. are met, then usually connections will be set up in as many places as are needed to sustain traffic flow. The main costs of high-bw internet lines are port costs (for the physical port on the router) and line costs. Usually in peering, both isps throw out their port costs, and then split the line costs (1 peer buys local loops for 1 ckt, the other gets the next one, etc). This provides tranit between the two networks at close to 0 cost for both providers. Now, if ISPs dont meet other's peering requirements, the smaller ISP either have to have a transit provider (a provider which will allow them to route traffic through their network to reach other ISPs'), which is very expensive, or they will have to purchase lines/ports from the large ISP, be they transit or not. Some companies have very open and lenient peering policies, and thus foster more open connectivity on the internet. However, an increasing number of ISPs are tightening their policies in an attempt to make more money. //Phizzy
except that if it was the size of their fibre network, it wouldn't very well be a LOCAL area network, now would it?
//Phizzy
No, No and NO.
First, these (and all core routers) have redundant power supplies. Second, the cords are screw-down DC power, which aren't going anywhere. Third, the front-panel throughput is a measure of how much traffic the line cards (ports on which all data enters and exits the router) can push, whereas the rear-panel throughput is a measure of how much the backplane can push between the (8) different line cards.
//Phizzy
*ahem*
Either way you'll pay for a service you are using. If you read the article, you would have heard all about how this is going to cost billions in infrastructure and eq upgrades, and about how unlimited use of this technology would likely impair things significantly, as people tend to use more bandwidth when they don't pay for it, and this _is_ a shared media. Someone has to pay for the upgrades.. and I tend to doubt that the telcos are going to spend billions of dollars for your approval alone. They are businesses, after all..
//Phizzy
..because the internet doesn't take a holiday.
I've been at work since 8am, and will be here for another hour (it's 7pm here..)
//Phizzy
How many computers do you have on this lan? Why do you think you need to 'own' the IP addresses? First off, you don't even need to own ANY ip addressed to do multihoming. You could NAT all of you LAN boxes up into the single /30 advertisement that your ISP(s) are going to give you for the serial interface on your router, and then have the ISP advertise that out to the 'net, and voila, you have multihoming. When one provider goes down, you can use your IGP to route across the other, OR, if you wanted to go a litte more high-class, you could buy a large router, and take full BGP tables from both providers, and differentiate intelligently based on the preferences sent on the routes. Now, if you don't want to do NAT, and there are a whole slew of good reasons you wouldn't, why are you hung up on ownership of these IP addresses? Why won't you let the IP-allocation process work like it's supposed to? If APNIC had to allocate IPs to every small business in the region it's responsible for, it would take 3 years to get IPs from them. Buy a block of IPs from your ISP(s), and if you transition to another ISP, re-number your network. Or, if you don't wanna go the cheap way, you CAN buy portable IP space from providers. Many of them buy whole Class As just for this purpose, it's just that you're going to have to pay more for these IPs than you would otherwise, as you should, since the ISP's netblocks can become non-contiguous if you leave. As far as your questions about IPv6 and router memory, the internet routing table is well up above 100k routes already, and there are many routers out there that are already having problems dealing with tables of this size. Many Cisco boxes will die in the near future if not upgraded, as their old routing engines run out of memory, and despite the fact that PC memory is cheap, router memory often is not. Especially when you have to install it on the tens of thousands of routers any decently sized ISP will have. IPv6 isn't really even a factor yet.. and when it is, many routers are going to need heavy upgrading (software, hardware, etc) to deal with it, which is why so many ISPs aren't rushing out to do it. So buy some portable IP space, get yourself multihomed, and go buy a good BGP book.
//Phizzy
yeah.. that, and StarOffice eats all your ram, not to mention your desktop when you run it. ;)
The test I've run of SunPCI has convinced our management to do away w/ separate NT/2000 systems when we move to a new building in april, and just outfit everyone w/ Ultra 5s, SunPCI cards and dual-head monitors..
//Phizzy
I am actually typing this comment on a Sun Microsystems SUNPCI card.. It's a celeron, I beleive a 466mhz or so, w/ 128m of ram. It has onboard video if you want to use an external monitor or can use the sun's native card if you want to run it windowed, ditto w/ ethernet. I've been using the card for about 3 months now, and other than some instability w/ SunOS 2.6 (which dissapeared in 2.8), I haven't had problems with it.. you can copy/paste between the Sun window and the 'PC' window, which is very helpful.. and though we are running WIN2000 on it (ok.. so shoot me) I don't see any reason why you couldn't run linux on it if you really wanted too.. All-in-all, the card is pretty badass..
//Phizzy
Where is Legend of the Red Dragon? Can we not include our BBS Door-game brethren in this fine list?
and how is Counterstrike not in the top ten.. tisk tisk.
//Phizzy
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone read the press release and understand the situation. If I had mod points I would use them on this post. I work for an ISP who has multiple OC12s and OC3s on this network, and we didn't lose connectivity to our site in Sydney, we just had reduced capacity. That, and I can't stand the smarmy ppl talking about how the network promised 100% redundancy. You have to do maintanence on a network sometime, and shit happens sometimes when you are doing it, and people are just gonna have to live with it. Thanks for adding perspective.
//Phizzy
Come on now.. do you think this is seriously going to affect the internet in any palpitable way whatsoever? Any ISP worth it's weight in fiber has large (OC3, 12, 48, 192) international interconnects, and LOTS of them. The point of the internet is that things are generally supposed to be location-independant. It doesn't matter if you're sending packets across domestic, terrestrial circuits from SanFran->NY, at 80ms or so, or from EU->NY at 100ms or so. Your downloads are going to look roughly the same, as does the capacity on those links. _Maybe_ you'll flood some smaller ISP's tunnel which is underprovisioned and oversubscribed but come on.. have a little more faith in the infrastructure. An undersea link is sometimes even cheaper to run than domestic bandwidth, since you're just sinking wires to a few hundred (or thousand) ft, and not burying cable across developed land. So don't expect this to be noticed by anyone.
//Phizzy
If you read further back into the NANOG list, you can see that about a month and a half ago, C&W sent out notices to all of the ISPs that it de-peered (it wasn't only PSI). So PSInet knew this was going to happen a few months ago, and did not take action to get another Transit provider, so that C&W customers could reach into their network and vice-versa. This hurts both ISPs, and anyone who is trying to reach PSI. While things are probably not going so well over at PSI, obviously, with them filing Chapter 11, they knew this was coming, and didn't act, and now are trying to give C&W a black eye. Peering agreements are created so that networks of roughly equal size can trade routes/data at minimal cost to both ISPs, but when one of those ISPs grows, and the other shrinks, the agreements must be re-considered. This is a fairly normal thing in the ISP world, and the only reason that this is creating problems and news is that PSInet didn't act to find a transit provider, or work out a transit agreement with C&W.
//Phizzy
Mac addresses are relatively local. When your computer sends out a packet, it wraps the data in a layer 2 header, w/ the Src and Dst MAC addresses, and then a layer 3 header, w/ dest and src IP addresses. Now, say you're sending a request to /... since your computer has no way of knowing /.'s MAC address, and no need to, it uses the MAC address for the gateway that the host has assigned to it. Once this packet goes across the ethernet to the gateway router, the router strips the layer 3 header, leaves it pretty much intact, looks at the layer 2 header, sees it's mac address, and knows it has to forward it. When it does forward it, it uses the MAC address of the next-hop host as the dest MAC address and it's outbound port's MAC address as the source, and the same thing happens at the next-hop, all the way down the line and back. SO, the lesson is the MAC address need only be unique within a broadcast domain, and the broadcast domain ends at the router. And besides, IPv6 isn't going to change the layer 2 addressing, we'll still be using (likely the same) Mac addresses.
Plus, I don't see anywhere you can buy internet-enabled garage doors OR fridges. So all of this is pointless, just like the whining about IPv6.
//Phizzy
I'm frankly getting sick of all of this IPv6 hype. With NAT, BGP and classless routing protocols, IPv4 still has plenty of life left in it. The change to IPv6 isn't going to happen soon, and it doesn't need to. Besides, if you really want to run IPv6 right now, just to prove that you are so much r3373r than your sys-admin buddies, go ahead and run it, and tunnel it through IPv4. It's perfectly feasible, and probably what early-adopters of IPv6 are going to have to do anyways, because as far as I know, there isn't a single backbone provider who is even seriously discussing implementing IPv6 in their network. We have loads of IPv4 space left, the IPv4 network that we're all using to post on this great site is obviously working quite well, and a load of new address space isn't going to help the internet in any really useful way. IPv6 is going to be a whole lot of work, a lot of hassles, a lot of connection problems, and with little short-term gains. Everyone always preaches not to upgrade your kernel if there isn't anything you're going to gain from it, so why upgrade your logical network addresses if it's not going to provide better service to you? IPv6 will come, but not until we need it to.
//Phizzy
are you smoking crack? I have a GF2 GTS w/ 64 megs, and we also have a voodoo5 w/ 64 megs in my house, both running off athlons, mine an 850, the other an 800.. and at 800x600, FSAA 2x, in OpenGL, they look roughly the same, but the GeForce has 10-20 more FPS (this is in counterstrike).. when you push them to 1024x768, the V5 drops significantly in FPS.. as does the GF2, but not as noticeably.
Still, why would you use a GF2 in 4x mode? I see using the V5 in 4x, b/c that's what the voodoo chips are good at.. looking pretty, w/ some hit in FPS.. the GF2s are better at high-fps, low FSAA applications.. don't try to make the GF2 look like the V5.
//Phizzy
well, if you had read the article, you would know that it takes standard inputs, so if you have $10k sitting around, you'll be able to play quake/watch pr0n/etc on it just as well as anything else.
And since it's a wearable, the term 'implant' is hardly appropriate.
//Phizzy
god damn.. you ppl get uppity about the smallest of things..
I said BGP could be either advanced distance vector or path vector. I personally think path vector makes more sense, but since BGP is similar in concept to other DV protocols (EIGRP), I included both as a helper..
Cisco actually refers to BGP in it's BCSN (ACRC) course as an "Advanced Distance Vector" protocol.
//Phizzy
Vector = direction + weight (magnitude)
for rip, direction = next hop and weight = num. of hops away
for BGP, direction = next hop or originating router and weight = LocalPref/AS-Path/MED/Weight/Origin Code/any of the other BGP attributes.
hope this helps.
//Phizzy
You damn CCIEs think you know everything.
BGP is *EITHER* a path-vector protocol or an "advanced distance vector protocol", as Cisco's literature (BSCN) clearly states. I have had this argument with other CCIEs, and there was an argument to be made, without a really clear-cut answer.
Every time a router receives an LSA, which has to change it's Link-state Database, it _does_ have to re-run SPF, which is very processor intensive.. anyways.. I was just trying to explain BGP vs OSPF to the person who asked... and yes, of course, you can do route summarization, but are you trying to say that you can run OSPF on very-large networks? I'd like to see you try.
2 full routing tables on a 2611? Maybe in 1994. We (as in the ISP I work for, the 2nd largest ISP in the world) suggest at least 64M/view, preferrably 128M/view.. I'd like to see a 2611 w/ 128M of ram, let alone 256. It would melt.
What happens if you are single-homed w/ you own AS? You should be shot. There is NO reason to have your own AS, unless you are multi-homed. PERIOD. You should have your ISP set up a static route and inject that into their BGP w/ a network statement.. I'd love to talk to some of your customers, with their 2611s, advertising one class C and getting a full routing table across their 128K line. They must have great performance.
and I already have my CCNA, thank you, and have taken ICND, Advanced BGP, and BSCN (ACRC), and I work with BGP and ISIS (a real IGP) every day in the real world..
//Phizzy
So you can use OSPF on the internet like you can use appletalk on the internet.. by encapulating it into another protocol.. so sorry.
//Phizzy
OSPF is a link-state protocol, rather than a distance vector protocol.. these are the two basic types of protocols. Basically, LS is like having a map of routes, from which you can determine the best path to a given destination, whereas distance vector is like having directions.. When Link State Databased get really large, they get unmanageable.. if you tried to run the internet on OSPF, every time a route changed, you would have to recalculate the LSD into the routing table, using the shortest-path algorithm, which is very processor-intensive.. and besides, since you have to keep a LS database as well a a routing table, you would need roughly 2x the memory.. BGP is a distance vector protocol (well.. some would say path vector, but we won't go there), which scales VERY well, so it is what is being used on the internet, but it is such a robust protocol, you need a large router to run it, and it only really matters if you have 2 different paths to take, which BGP can differentiate between (multi-homed), rather than just one connection.. (single-homed).. when you are single-homed, BGP is just a waste.
//Phizzy
Ok.. so I'd like to have ethernet or fibre into my house, but I _still_ wouldn't need to use OSPF or BGP. OSPF is a medium-to-large network routing protocol, which cannot be used on the internet, and is not suited for home use unless you have a _REALLY LARGE_ network at home, otherwise it would be a waste or resources.. static routing with a defualt route is much more efficient. And unless you plan on having more than one 100mb eth line or fibre line pulled into your house, and buying a router which can handle something around 200,000 routes (the current internet routing table x2, one view from each provider), the BGP isn't going to do you any good.. BGP is only helpful for a multi-homing situation.
SO.. do you research on your routing protocols.. you'd more likely need PPPoverEthernet for dummies, or maybe Routing for Dummies.
//Phizzy
This here is a thing called sarcasm. Learn to appreciate it.
//Phizzy