From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (omr1.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2001:468:c80:2105:0:2fc:76e3:30de]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF00D21F220 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mr4.cc.vt.edu (mr4.cc.vt.edu [198.82.164.236] (may be forged)) by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0Q4XKRW002971; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:33:20 -0500 Received: from auth1.smtp.vt.edu (auth1.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.161.152] (may be forged)) by mr4.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0Q4XEMG004072; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:33:19 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([IPv6:2601:b:3180:4d3:9147:6f8b:fb95:b07b]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth1.smtp.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0Q4XEgc029798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:33:14 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6+dev To: David Lang In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:09:59 -0800." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <54B5D28A.3010906@gmail.com> <7B1EA8F0-FCB6-4A37-950F-2558FC751DE8@gmail.com> <54C038D0.1000305@gmail.com> <54C0BD22.3000608@gmail.com> <54C13F47.1010203@gmail.com> <1422111577.328132080@apps.rackspace.com> <1422217048.025611275@apps.rackspace.com> <1422237076.005718796@apps.rackspace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1422246794_2175P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:33:14 -0500 Message-ID: <11462.1422246794@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mr4.cc.vt.edu Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Recording RF management info _and_ associated traffic? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:33:59 -0000 --==_Exmh_1422246794_2175P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:09:59 -0800, David Lang said: > The difference is that the switches and their protocols have been designed from > the beginning for this scale of operation, IP routing protocols are designed for > much fewer endpoints to track. Anybody who's carrying a full routing table was swallowing on the order of 528,833 routes (as of Friday's "weekly routing table report" posted to NANOG). Pretty much everybody and their pet llama accepts full tables thesedays. You know anybody who's doing that many entries in an L2 Ethernet broadcast domain? --==_Exmh_1422246794_2175P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQIVAwUBVMXDigdmEQWDXROgAQJXSA//dfxN7j+F3hD3z0LnCtR9s08O7RNjVUBw jAPdTiUWVZTmRP8sSda1XZppzNgQdiSSBmIGhtsd3ozupjlUnlD1wuy4bDZVqQOp jqUx6PfkaaLHMcxEgWEpm/8elkb6Q4jWaOFIRFCgqCzsxnCSuAqjYJpB6BumsE0+ QbdHRHvL+ZnZ/gs9+BFNWRJJwXKsLTWDUbKjgyXXKdlZaFMy/mWZLSSGn4xj3H2Z pvjMujbC02Pl7XkRGTqY93aAFJDNEHwrxZmi1/o9PcnHwOLpPFPCzyesXkhWjAh8 Ffq9HQd0P1esPQ7dMzOU+TFqe7ydAIMkOsFfGdMJrABK2rdn0guRfykAyYNCMBz3 m/gyfCsMQf2n0On7exY2WtqK+QqjhqLJXfGpJ+ejPHzsQgvUYfJVQ2kTbFKxv1nt Ndii3/qq5eUAn9V0tZ8Olf7c/mH3kWARwet25YLnfBDnKtDLiDjbtuLRNWLgvcn3 N1fTTMZ5P0QBQS4L+N/kX8fuJ3dSuiYMKMfR7tDqFBRO4eFcTEvygo+EBV7jVLLJ EuI3wE6EQ5rXm7iCD+F1Tzo1HH/5z/fkcl38K4LX41LeQAD+dAUdEzScUKvqbqb/ uBbvPOt4HyDO7w+/LmOAik4u1UoO6UdoOmyTHA9Pn569qew9nkykuIQJ6pAs8+1d L5VHAzIpJD0= =UCxg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1422246794_2175P--