[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
John Paul Morrison
jmorrison at bogomips.com
Tue Jun 19 12:54:07 EDT 2007
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)
- 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
- 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
- routing scalability (routes advertised and withdrawn) - seems like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:
> 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.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML