[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process
George, Wes E [NTK]
Wesley.E.George at sprint.com
Fri Jun 5 15:32:20 EDT 2009
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>VISA and MasterCard corporation have devised systems that can handle
>hundreds of millions of non-contiguous credit card numbers coming in for
>Approvals, from every corner of the globe. I therefore have an
>extremely difficult time believing that it is impossible to build a
>router that cannot handle, say, 10 or 20 million BGP routes. I also
>have a difficult time believing that this cannot be done for the $50K to
>$100K that Cisco and Juniper seem to think they can charge for a
>fully-optioned BGP router.
I'd love to see an IETF draft on how this technology is applicable, because I'm failing to follow your logic as to how VISA/MC are in any way related to global routing infrastructure. As far as I can tell, they are good at building a database that can rapidly validate lots of fixed-length numbers (which, I might add are rigidly hierarchical through ISO standards and therefore easier to break up the namespace to do efficient searches).
Leo Bicknell wrote:
>Anyway, this isn't a router architecture list. Google TCAM, join
>Cisco-nsp or Juniper-nsp, and/or have your hardware vendor send out
>an engineer. While I'm not sure I would say in all instances these
>large boxes are offered at a fair price, it's also not the case
>that $100 of DDR2-800 would fix the problem. There are real,
>serious, expensive engineering challenges moving more than a couple
>of Gigabits per second.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's simply not helpful to this discussion to try to blame another deep pocketed, greedy corporation for preventing everyone's refrigerator from getting a /32. This isn't a giant conspiracy. IPv6 route scale is a hard problem to solve, and it *IS* a reality for every major ISP, even if you put aside debates about the relative scarcity or lack thereof of the address space that exists in IPv6.
For what it's worth, I am against this proposal as written. I think it has some good ideas, but I don't support the linking to existing IPv4 address allocations, nor do I like the idea of having significant amounts of renumbering triggered every time a given block size is exhausted. However, some of the other requirements might make sense in making the "Open access to IPv6" policy more palatable.
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
More information about the ARIN-PPML