> On Sun, 25 Jan 2015, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> The full IP routing tables are something that you normally only have to deal
> with in a few devices at the perimeter of your network.
>
> What is being talked about here is routing each /32 IP address individually
> throughout your network so that any IP address can be connected anywhere and
> have it 'just work' as far as the client on that IP is concerned.
>
> David Lang
>