[151188] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Tue Mar 13 09:50:17 2012
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:48:05 -0700
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5315F5C7-280C-4BA1-83DC-A4CDBE04EAE4@apnic.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:19:00PM +1100, Geoff Huston=
wrote:
> On 13/03/2012, at 2:31 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > It was never clear to me that even if it worked 100% as advertised that
> > it would be cheaper / better in the global sense.
>=20
> I think that's asking too much of the IETF Leo - Shim6 went through much =
the
> same process as most of the IETF work these days: bubble of thought, BOF =
sanity
> check, requirements work, protocol prototyping, technology specification.
I think you took my statement a bit too literally, as if I wanted
a proof that shim6 would be cheaper than building larger routers.
That would be asking way too much. However, shim6 for me never
even passed the theoretical smell test economically.
To make routers handle more DFZ routes basically means putting more
memory in routers. It may be super fancy super expensive fast TCAM
to handle the job, but at the end of the day it's pretty much just
more memory, which means more money. There's a wild range of
estimates as to how many DFZ routers there are out there, but it
seems like the low end is 50,000 and the high end is 500,000. A
lot of ram and a lot of money for sure, but as far as we can tell
a tractable problem even with a growth rate much higher than we
have now.
Compare and contrast with shim6, even if you assume it does everything
it was billed to do. First, it assumes we migrate everyone to IPv6,
because it's not an IPv4 solution. Second, it assumes we update
well, basically every since device with an IP stack. I'm guessing
we're north of 5 billion IP devices in the world, and wouldn't be
surprised if the number isn't more like 10 billion. Third, because
it is a software solution, it will have to be patched/maintained/ported
_forever_.
I'm hard pressed in my head to rationalize how maintaining software for
the next 50 years on a few billion or so boxes is cheaper in the global
sense than adding memory to perhaps half a million routers.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)
iQIVAwUBT19QFbN3O8aJIdTMAQLh5Q/+M749yoiXC1IjgPt6HB1r64nPIgO0583s
FsIwwgSjkPml+VIrLWmQ0oX4ED723qtkwIu2fsjoqQTeTV2CnKuunE3KFoPJO9OR
rvFJ7SxDIUk1D3WfAI/g1cJjc3bleov8bEPvLmvOlqkbWJdfqsgvt3S83XBtyb/U
ObvzAa1rM2G6pOyY1/KJvkAZ+y01XabY2Zq73chJnkUlO/DLkziJSaENM7O6IaLm
kFqvT/Mwegb56iR5PDsGCBLoziLBWBGmHzeetjX+qaFfTP/GZ3wwHB1ozwHAAtqJ
ILRLWk3jokpcRlfhoD8r40Sn5NNyickZyufgacV2RYSgSpDmLD6uf1ngp5LDLnfc
du1vIuS4YONmoMcv2QC8KHGv2zLbUzyguRH6IjVrcs9l7nzWZJjjStTzIsnkq3X2
Y3n/W2CLxXTMxsCIewf3YrcAIer9MQ8nO/amIlB3wZ0htysx374XmXVUeWiT3CRU
VZN6h5glJJWd2C5cSboD7e65Nq1o+3D+KtOrySPKSV24Yph4bbmYxvAcg8fgFfuq
Nj54Q6E6mxGPTypA+TeBsKRQFfltEw0ZX6b+lkEwja1q2J4y3jpmZfIrBbQkfoOT
rCOamH41frGw7BfF2zroUVKiqJM4zH3suZ0WRuJcduJfyVxzF2110PK1t2bSX/te
UMX4+3dHKCA=
=z+e/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW--
