Is using default routes between routers more resource-intensive than complete routing tables?

Using default routes between routers involves directing traffic through a single, overarching path for packets destined for networks not included in the router's routing table. This method simplifies routing decisions because routers only need to reference the default route for unknown destinations rather than maintaining extensive routing tables with network-specific paths.

When a router employs default routes, it can significantly conserve CPU and memory resources compared to managing complete routing tables that list all possible routes. Complete routing tables encompass detailed entries for each network, which can grow substantially in size, especially in larger networks or the Internet. Such extensive routing tables require more processing power and memory for lookups, updates, and maintenance.

Hence, utilizing default routes is less resource-intensive because it reduces the complexity and size of routing information that routers need to manage. This efficiency is particularly beneficial in decreasing the overhead in environments where routing table management can become burdensome. In contrast, complete routing tables entail a higher demand on system resources, making the assertion that using default routes is more resource-intensive inaccurate.