[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
David Williamson
dlw+arin at tellme.com
Mon Jun 18 15:26:37 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:32:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Is it just me or is there appears to be a disconnect here: > > - On the one hand, we're told that routers can today handle an order > of magnitude more "routing slots" and over the long term, can handle > oodles more and that the RIRs don't do "routability". There's two pieces here that are interesting. There's sufficient raw copmuting power and space to hold a complete 10M-route table, which I do believe routers are likely to have "soon". The other piece is more dynamic - you need to have some way to send/receive full table updates in a timely fashion, and process them to convergence before the next set of large disturbances to your local table. Given the way BGP works, I think the latter is unlikely to be an operable possibility at 10M-routes. For my org, all failures would be handled in ~100ms. BGP presently takes minutes to converge. Changing that to 10s of minutes (while additional updates continue to show up) is just not a workable solution. The number of routing slots really is important, regrettably. That whole loc/id split thing will need to get solved, somehow. I know I'm really not looking forward to the BGP replacement period. I suspect it will be at least as painful as the IPv4 -> IPv6 transition. I simply don't think the current combination of BGP and IP is going to scale in the way that some folks claim. I could be wrong, but.... -David
- Previous message: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list