[125271] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Apr 11 16:30:29 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <g31velbyum.fsf@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:30:05 -1000
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Paul,
On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> writes:
>> Growth becoming significantly more expensive is guaranteed. ...
> more expensive for whom, though?
ISPs requiring space will have to pay more and I fully anticipate that =
cost will propagate down to end users. In (some version of) an ideal =
world, IPv6 would be at no cost to end users, thereby incentivizing them =
to encourage their favorite porn sites (et al) to offer their wares via =
IPv6.
> unless a market in routing slots appears, there's no way for the =
direct
> beneficiaries of deaggregation to underwrite the indirect costs of =
same.
And that's different from how it's always been in what way?
My tea leaf reading is that history will repeat itself. As it was in =
the mid-90's, as soon as routers fall over ISPs will deploy prefix =
length (or other) filters to protect their own infrastructure as =
everybody scrambles to come up with some hack that won't be a solution, =
but will allow folks to limp along. Over time, router vendors will =
improve their kit, ISPs will rotate out routers that can't deal with the =
size/flux of the bigger routing table (passing the cost on to their =
customers, of course), and commercial pressures will force the removal =
of filters. Until the next go around since IPv6 doesn't solve the =
routing scalability problem.
The nice thing about history repeating itself is that you know when to =
go out and get the popcorn.
Regards,
-drc
