[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 19 12:33:36 EDT 2007

This debate about the headroom in routers.... "major ISPs say
this"...... "router vendors say this"....

Haven't heard anything real capacity from someone claiming the former
title recently.....

But, Randy Bush stated in an earlier email..."funny.  just last week,
the big two router vendors stood in front of us at ripe and said two
million prefixes today and ten million in a few years."

I'm thinking 'holding them' and 'routing them' in a real-world DFZ may
be a different issue.

But, seems clear from most of what I hear that David's doubling or
tripling of routes is doable an a more likely number than 2 or 3 orders
of magnitude.

Someone really know?  Someone speak.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:05 AM
> To: Leo Bicknell
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list