[138540] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Wed Mar 9 13:31:05 2011
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E70FF6AA-CDF1-4E96-859A-89C57BCB843E@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:30:20 -0200
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
=
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D0,5&cluster=3D605867653=
4328717115 =20
@article{cittadini2010evolution,
title=3D{{Evolution of Internet Address Space Deaggregation: Myths and =
Reality}},
author=3D{Cittadini, L. and Muhlbauer, W. and Uhlig, S. and Bush, R. =
and Fran{\c{c}}ois, P. and Maennel, O.},
journal=3D{Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on},
volume=3D{28},
number=3D{8},
pages=3D{1238--1249},
issn=3D{0733-8716},
year=3D{2010},
publisher=3D{IEEE}
}
But times are changing and IMHO in the future the growth would =
be because of deaggregation (in v4). For v6 the growth I assume is (and =
will be) allocation, but I do not have a research to support that.
-as
On 9 Mar 2011, at 16:00, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly around 120k =
prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as v4 =
did.=20
>> I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational =
planning, few organizations should need to add more prefixes annually, =
the way they had to in IPv4 due to scarcity based allocation policies.
>=20
> The implication of this statement would seem to be that the reason the =
routing tables are growing is due primarily to allocations and not =
deaggregation (e.g., for traffic engineering). Does anyone have any =
actual data to corroborate or refute this?
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
