Talk:Routing table

message: Olo!
The information in this section was okay (by me, anyhoo), but a lot of factors, including verbose repetition of phrasing, and ambiguity, left it rather unintelligible. Some of the points of concern for me were:
 . Repetition of a few words, like "whenever."
 . Too much parallelism in the sentence structure
 . Using the word "data"  to mean different things in different contexts.
 . The word "package" was introduced, without enough qualification.
 . Random reference to a change in the architecture after first paragraph.
I rewrote the whole thing, mostly, which fixed the first two; I either eliminated all usage of "data," except in reference to the data that the original node needed to send; and, I defined the use of package a little better. As for the obscure reference, I didn't fix it, but I also didn't want to delete any useful (though extraneous) info; instead, I tacked it onto the second para, which does make much sense to me, any way: Should it be under Basics?
38.109.136.11 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics: Rewrite 

message: Current  version talks about several routinge tables on one host. As far as I know each host has only one table (perhaps single table for each user). Routing protocols (the protocols that upkeep network topology information) may have tables or likely other structures but these are not used for packet-forwarding directly - instead they build routing table. Therefore I propose to remove mentions to multiple tables. --Alvin-cs ✉ 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple tables vs. single table 

message: :Even in low-end home routers, there still will be more than one table associated with routing. Older Cisco routers, for example, had the main routing table, which was sometimes used to look up forwarding information, as in certain kinds of load balancing (per-packet, if anyone cares). That table, since it was optimized for update by routing protocols, was the slowest lookup for forwarding.
:For most purposes, the older routers used a "fast cache" in main memory for routine lookup, and it indeed was faster. It also had to be invalidated and rebuilt when the router learned a new destination.  Now, the default forwarding mode is Cisco Express Forwarding (CEF) even in small routers. CEF has the feature of having a forwarding-optimized table in one-to-one correspondence with the routing table, so there is never a "cache miss" conditioning forcing recomputation of the forwarding table.
::It would be good to have discussion of cache and other acceleration techniques here or in Routing or Router (computing). ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even little bitty routers...

message: I needed to get consultation before commenting.  Please see the comments I have left you on your talk page.  Please remember that:
# Wiki always needs a intro that anyone that can understand.
# cannot be written as a manual or a how to.
# cannot explain how to set something up.
# cannot go off topic. See example of what is wrong with control plane and forwarding plane from an admin.
If you can write the article that it stays encyclopedic and does not read like a manual. You can write the articles as they are.  They cannot go into overtly complex detail or they will be considered to read like a manual, and be flagged for deletion.  Not by me but by someone else, Remember I am an inclusionist. (But even I see the limits and you need to too.)
Also you can post information to the Talk page of the networking groups talk page when it has to do with something on its to do list.  Remember to add the networking group's talk page to your watch list.
If you do not understand please ask me on my talk page; Talk to akc9000 I respond to my talk page requests first. Then others. So if you need an answer, please feel free to ask there.  As you will see on that page, I am dealing with other editors trying to delete things from the networking articles that I believe should be there. So believe me when I tell you I write to you to tell you how to do things right so your articles do not get deleted and we make Wiki the best it can be according to the style guidelines.
I am removing the merge tag. It is up to us to make sure we do not go off track with this articles. Stay on topic. Use wiki links to refernce other data. Do not repeat data, do not write a manual on a topic.
Remember, I exist on Wiki to help editors not to hurt them.  But I still have to point out mistakes and take action.
--akc9000 (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Proposal 

message: Paragraphs 4 through 7 of the "Basics" section are a direct copy/paste from the "Routing and Switching Companion Guide" by Cisco Networking Academy. In my hard copy of the text, the passage is from page 202. I was thinking this should be added to the references, or changed so that it is not a word for word copy.
Pmmeyourghosts (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a diff and the only piece of these paragraphs that still exists in the current article is . ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagiarism 

message: Hi. I understand that OS specific details are not appropriate for a top level concept page like this one "routing tables". However, after reading this article and the Forward Information Base article, the FreeBSD implementation of routing tables does not seem to follow these articles' nomenclature.
For example, from what I understand, in FreeBSD, the kernel routing tables are called FIB, and the routing daemon routing tables are called RIB. I am assuming that the FIB is a compiled version of the RIB, based on the Forward Information Base Wikipedia article. Also, the FreeBSD kernel compile option ROUTETABLES=n adjusts the number of FIB, and the kernel boot option net.fibs=n adjust the number of FIB at boot. There is no run time adjustment. Some software has switch -F n to select the FIB to use, other software requires setfib(1).
Irregardless of whether or not the above paragraph is true, is there any way to get a brief section detailing the language of each major kernel (Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.), and how they differ or how they are similar. The idea is that a person reading the concept article could then read the kernel specific section to get a better understanding and a clear path to more detailed exploration for that specific kernel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.128.66 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section For OS specific details appropriate?