[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[McBurnett, Jim]

> Well, routers are getting faster and smarter, but you are 
> assuming that 
> routing table growth and routing table computation increase 
> linearly with 
> respect to one another.  I do not know enough about route computation 
> algorithms to say one way or another.

Although I am not an expert.. Consider this: 
Cisco will tell you that a 2650XM router Retail:$3295. 
	This has the power and RAM to handle a huge route table..


> But can multihomed joe end user afford the latest and 
> greatest 6 and 7 
> figure router?  Many people are running low-end or old 
> routers that are 
> being pushed to the limit.  What about them?
See note above.. Routers are cheap.. I am using a 2621 to multihome..
Default route only.. Ya don't need a 7200 anymore... and with the new
7200 Proc upgrade..... anyway we should not be doing WAN design here.....

> 
> Just so we're all on the same page, I am all for doing what 
> is best for the 
> entire Internet.  I realize I have mainly been arguing 
> routing table issues 
> against reducing the minimum size, but that is mainly because 
> of the fact 
> that there are very few people arguing those points, and I feel it is 
> important for both sides of an argument to be presented.
> 
> Alec

Route table size..Assume an end user is multi-homed with ISP A and ISP B
ISP A provides the IP addresses, and ISP A can summarize.. ISP B can't
so routing table size is still gonna grow!!!

NOTE 2: If we use the /8 block to Multi-home, the back bone providers may very well
have the option to summarize the multi-homers.... They, Assume backbone A,
get 10.0.0.0/24 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.2.0/24 and more.. All of these go to different Tier 2/3
providers below Backbone A. Backbone A will summarize.. hence global tables don't really grow
that much.. 

Anyway, this is not a routing class either...

J


> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
>