[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[John Paul Morrison]

I second your comments.

Reality check: It seems like knee-jerk, fear/uncertainty and doubt are 
influencing policy decisions. This is bad.
A lot of the arguments and reasoning is 10 years old, but the fact is 
there's been a lot of new silicon since then.

But here are some links to some IETF and NANOG presentations, in the 
interest of informed decision making:

(Juniper) Scudder's NANOG presentation: 
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-scudder.pdf (this is 
where the 10 million route claim is made)

My summary: 

- existing technology will scale for the next decade
- some other promising areas of research, long term effort
- or don't run BGP in the core (there's no need for full BGP on P 
routers) - deployed, working today

(This last one may be useful to point out - a lot of core (P) routers 
simply forward labels and have no need for full tables.)


IETF 68 plenary
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/plenaryw-3.pdf

- 5 to 10 years of growth, scalability not yet limited by FIB/RIB size - 
(speed and forwarding path more the issue)
- No Need for Panic

IETF 68 - routing - some nice tables and statistics
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/rtgarea-2.pdf

- routing scalability (routes advertised and withdrawn) - seems like 
clear-cut case for dampening
- some nice graphs of prefix growth. (Looks like linear growth to me)



David Conrad wrote:
> Leo,
>
> On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>   
>>> a) huh?  Last I checked, there were 800 IPv6 prefixes being routed
>>>       
>> Entirely the wrong metric.
>>     
> ...
>   
>> There will be
>> somewhere between the number of AS's allocated and the number of
>> current IPv4 routes in the DFZ in the future IPv6 DFZ, and that's
>> the interesting number.
>>     
>
> So, between 60K and 250K additional routes, which (according to the  
> router vendors) is still 1/4th what today's routers can handle.  That  
> would appear to double the size of the routing table over a 2 to 3  
> year period, not be a "jump by at least one order of magnitude  
> overnight, perhaps closer to two orders of magnitude."
>
>   
>> And yet, the major operators keep standing up and telling the RIR
>> community it's BS.
>>     
>
> Clearly there is a disconnect.  From my perspective, operators who  
> are concerned have been completely drowned out by those who (for  
> whatever reason) are not concerned. If major operators actually  
> believe what the router vendors is saying is BS, then they should  
> probably stop preaching to the choir in the RIR community and make  
> their feelings known more forcefully in places like NANOG (I wasn't  
> there, did anyone shoot down Scudder's presentation?) and the IETF.
>
>   
>> If we put a policy like this in place before the rush
>> to get IPv6 space really hits in a big way I think you would find
>> the IPv6 DFZ would surpass the IPv4 DFZ in a matter of 2-3 years
>> after the rush starts.
>>     
>
> Aside from the fact that the IPv6 DFZ surpassing the IPv4 DFZ is a  
> mere doubling and there is (supposedly) sufficient headroom in  
> routers today, much less 2 to 3 years from now, what would drive the  
> rush for IPv6 space?  I am skeptical that simply it's availability  
> (particularly if the $100/year fee was recurrent).  IPv6 would need  
> to provide something that IPv4+NAT doesn't.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070619/97009157/attachment.htm>