Comment Re:Routing is a problem. (Score 1) 222
Actually the table needs to be quite a bit bigger than 8MB, as there will be multiple routes to destinations, and other route properties (also isnt 2^28 bits == 32MBytes not 8).
Looking this up fast is hard, even using the techniques you describe which are already used in modern routers with distributed switching architectures.
The problem in both telephone and internet networks boils down to a good clean hierarchy versus the ability to change providers and keep old addresses. This later obviously breaks any hierarchy that may have been in the system. Using namelookup mechanisms is a saving grace, as people can renumber and preserve structure. Having 128 bits of address space helps a little (as users dont have to come back for more addresses). IPv6 isnt the whole answer though - indeed some of the IPv6 address allocation procedures Ive seen look worse than what we currently have for IPv4.
Any one who uses "class A/B/C" should be immediately corrected because they cause immense confusion. Its no harder to say "slash 8" than "class A", a lot clearer, and try saying "2 bits longer than a class B" instead of "slash 18". Its amazing really how many "supposed experts" keep refering to class A/B/C in a non-historical context.
Unfortunately theres still some software that contains classful bugs. All Solaris up to at least 2.5.1 (they route without a netmask !), DNS-servers, and Ciscos IOS for example..... Linux has remarkably few :)
Looking this up fast is hard, even using the techniques you describe which are already used in modern routers with distributed switching architectures.
The problem in both telephone and internet networks boils down to a good clean hierarchy versus the ability to change providers and keep old addresses. This later obviously breaks any hierarchy that may have been in the system. Using namelookup mechanisms is a saving grace, as people can renumber and preserve structure. Having 128 bits of address space helps a little (as users dont have to come back for more addresses). IPv6 isnt the whole answer though - indeed some of the IPv6 address allocation procedures Ive seen look worse than what we currently have for IPv4.
Any one who uses "class A/B/C" should be immediately corrected because they cause immense confusion. Its no harder to say "slash 8" than "class A", a lot clearer, and try saying "2 bits longer than a class B" instead of "slash 18". Its amazing really how many "supposed experts" keep refering to class A/B/C in a non-historical context.
Unfortunately theres still some software that contains classful bugs. All Solaris up to at least 2.5.1 (they route without a netmask !), DNS-servers, and Ciscos IOS for example..... Linux has remarkably few
