From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: (diet-)FIB alternative fib_hlist.c Date: 5 May 2005 20:07:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20050505180743.GC24386@muc.de> References: <17016.62444.34282.625407@robur.slu.se> <1115297370.7680.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Robert Olsson , Jens.Laas@data.slu.se, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:07:43 +0200 To: jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1115297370.7680.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Great patch it is - but why do you say "99.999% of all users" feel they > would love this? Clearly perfomance at the low routes area is not What I wanted to say is that 99.999% of all users dont need the cisco grade BGP4 capable standard FIB, it is a just wasted complexity and memory for them. > something that is a huge difference against standard fib. And you suffer > miserably at latge route size. > Is it memory consumption you are thinking of? Yes, and complexity. -Andi