[138521] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Antonio Querubin)
Wed Mar 9 04:56:26 2011
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:55:25 -1000 (HST)
From: Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D7745D5.6040608@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
>
> If the slope on the second stays within some reasonable bounds of it's
> current trajactory then everything's cool, you buy new routers on
> schedule and the world moves on. The first one however will eventually
> kill us.
A valid comparison really needs to use the same vertical scale. That
first is only 2300 new entries in the last 12 months. The other is 35000
new entries in the same period.
Antonio Querubin
e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
