[ppml] Legacy /24s
arin-contact at dirtside.com
Mon Sep 3 10:27:14 EDT 2007
On 9/3/07, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Most internet-oriented technology needs to be refreshed on a 2-4 year
> life-cycle, actually.
I generally get better results from my equipment buy YMMV.
> > The number of routes and ASes in the DFZ implies that there are
> > somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 routers in the DFZ.
> Here, I think you go off the rails with a big hand-wave. How, exactly
> do you think you can correlate the routes+ASs in the DFZ to the
> number of routers participating in the DFZ?
As I said before, its a SWAG. Some of the better educated responders
suggest that I'm around 50k too high here with the actual number in
the 150k-250k range.
> Why is an IPv6 prefix 2x an IPv4 prefix?
That's what Cisco is claiming in their documentation. 1M IPv4 routes
or 500k IPv6 routes. I assume this probably means they're stashing the
first 64 bits into the TCAM and bouncing it up to the software if you
need a route more specific than /64. Sounds sloppy to me but I'm not
> > So, with any proposal to expand the availability of IPv6 PI, the
> > question that should be asked is: "Does the proposed use in the
> > expansion justify asking the rest of the world to pay $17k?"
> Since that's 17k divided amongst 30k or so organizations, you're
> really asking each other org. to foot a $0.50 bill per prefix.
26109 AS's according to the latest routing table report yielding
closer to $0.65. But that's a false way of looking at problem. Some
AS's have one DFZ router. Some have many. None interact with the
problem in terms of individual routes; they have to deal with the
whole route count.
Looking at the cost of an individual route is useful in terms of the
whole systemic cost accross the entire DFZ.
> > My opinion is that in the case of a multihomed content provider, the
> > answer is yes. Why should he receive poor treatment in IPv6 merely
> What about a multihomed content consumer? Why should they
> be treated any worse than a multihomed content provider?
Because non-PI multihoming solutions for the NATed content consumer
are relatively trivial to build.
> Nobody really cares about the $100/yr. Proposals to waive that
> have been targeted at providing what little incentive we can towards
> other behaviors for the common good.
Yet the original posters in this thread brought it up as a complaint.
William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML