[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Bill Darte]

> There is pressure for consolidation in the existing markets, 
> yes. At the 
> same time I suspect that the level of provider care and 
> attention to some 
> of the common issues, including routing table size will 
> decline due to the 
> price pressures on the providers.  We saw in V4 that the most 
> basic form of 
> routing bloat pressure was from inattention to routing detail 
> - these folk 
> were in general not malicious - they were simply following 
> the templates 
> left by the original installers. This is certainly a more 
> significant risk 
> factor in an increasingly commoditized  provider environment. 
> (Its not that 
> they won't care, but they they'll find it harder to fund caring)
> 
> regards,
> 
>     Geoff

So, my interpretation of your views is that in the short term there will be
upward pressure on the size of router table due to provider inexperience and
distraction, but in the longer term these inefficiencies will be swept away
by the consolidation of providers due to the commoditization of global
communications.  Is it reasonable to think that significan consolidation
will happen over the 15 years?

Imagining, just for the sake of argument, that the ensuing oligopoly is
represented by 12 'super' providers and a few thousands of niche, value
added, local providers....what then would be the impact on the router table
given common practice (BGP)?


> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:04 PM 24/01/2006, Bill Darte wrote:
> >Geoff,
> >I'm interested in knowing whether you think that the 
> consolidation of 
> >providers in a global commodity market for vX bit pushing 
> will impact 
> >the routing table 'bloat'.....assuming you think that 
> consolidation is 
> >a logical consequence of the commodity of bit 
> pushing....assuming you 
> >think bit pushing IS a commodity. Didn't mean to make a 
> riddle out of 
> >this..
> >
> >Geoff said:
> >Given that there are few natural constraints to routing table bloat 
> >other than an advanced state of social consciousness, the 
> drivers for 
> >IPv6 routing table bloat appear to include a vastly larger 
> end device 
> >population and a commodity utility provider structure that 
> cares little 
> >about spending time (and money) to take measures to avoid 
> routing table 
> >expansion. That would appear to constitute grounds for 
> thinking that, 
> >yes, there is a distinct risk of IPv6 route table bloat at levels 
> >greater than we've seen in IPv4.
> 
>