Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot))

From: Jeroen Massar (no email)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 06:16:01 EDT

  • Next message: Roland Dobbins: "Re: Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot))"

    Paul Vixie wrote:
    [..]
    > i wouldn't want to get in an argument with somebody who was smart and savvy
    > enough to invent packet switching during the year i entered kindergarden,
    > but, somebody told me once that keeping information on every flow was *not*
    > "inexpensive." should somebody tell dr. roberts?

    Isn't the reason that "NetFlow" (or v10 which is the the IETF/Cisco
    named IPFIX) exists the side-effect of having routers doing "flow based
    routing" aka "keeping an entry per IP flow, thus using that entry for
    every next packet to quickly select the outgoing interface instead of
    having to go through all the prefixes" ?
    The flows are in those boxes, but only for stats purposes exported with
    NetFlow/IPFIX/sFlow/etc. Apparently it was not as fast as they liked it
    to be and there where other issues. Thus what exactly is new here in his
    boxes that has not been tried and failed before?

    Greets,
      Jeroen




  • Next message: Roland Dobbins: "Re: Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot))"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD