<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I second your comments. <br>
<br>
Reality check: It seems like knee-jerk, fear/uncertainty and doubt are
influencing policy decisions. This is bad. <br>
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. <br>
<br>
But here are some links to some IETF and NANOG presentations, in the
interest of informed decision making:<br>
<br>
(Juniper) Scudder's NANOG presentation:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-scudder.pdf">http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-scudder.pdf</a> (this is
where the 10 million route claim is made)<br>
<br>
My summary: <br>
<br>
- existing technology will scale for the next decade<br>
- some other promising areas of research, long term effort<br>
- or don't run BGP in the core (there's no need for full BGP on P
routers) - deployed, working today<br>
<br>
(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.)<br>
<br>
<br>
IETF 68 plenary<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/plenaryw-3.pdf">http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/plenaryw-3.pdf</a><br>
<br>
- 5 to 10 years of growth, scalability not yet limited by FIB/RIB size
- (speed and forwarding path more the issue)<br>
- No Need for Panic<br>
<br>
IETF 68 - routing - some nice tables and statistics<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/rtgarea-2.pdf">http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/rtgarea-2.pdf</a><br>
<br>
- routing scalability (routes advertised and withdrawn) - seems like
clear-cut case for dampening<br>
- some nice graphs of prefix growth. (Looks like linear growth to me)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David Conrad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:FFEA74CA-7591-4EF1-8AD2-AD403F417022@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Leo,
On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a) huh? Last I checked, there were 800 IPv6 prefixes being routed
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Entirely the wrong metric.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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."
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And yet, the major operators keep standing up and telling the RIR
community it's BS.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PPML@arin.net">PPML@arin.net</a>).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>