[138537] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Wed Mar 9 12:48:10 2011
In-Reply-To: <5B86E65F-4D37-4F8F-87D7-D5D4CD9AED6B@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:48:06 -0800
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 That's what we wanted for the first one.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=3D%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv=
6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=3DActive%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&yla=
bel=3DActive%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=3Dstep
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=3D%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fa=
s2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=3DActive%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=
=3DActive%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=3Dstep
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly aro=
und 120k prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as=
v4 did.
>>
> I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational plannin=
g, few organizations should need to add more
> prefixes annually, the way they had to in IPv4 due to scarcity based allo=
cation policies.
...which was, ultimately, a large part of the point of going to 128
bits. The most important one for networks.
--=20
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
