[165975] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Fri Sep 27 09:36:53 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2k3i3iimx.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:36:49 -0400
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> y'know, it's funny. there is a market in ipv4 space. there is no
> market in routing table slots. perhaps this is not conspiracy but
> rather the market is speaking.
That easily could be the case. So how well is has the current model
been working out for IPv4? It appears that only feedback mechanism
is the "The Cidr Report" <http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#Gains>,
and last time this topic came up was almost exactly two years ago
back at 375000 routes... is this success? Perhaps more conference
banners are needed?
> of course, we can use the idea of a market in routing table slots,
> rack space, or coffee to distract from the artificial problems in
> the only actual market, ipv4 address space.
No desire at all to distract from the discussions on that topic, and
in fact, I'd encourage folks (including yourself) to pop on over to
PPML and make suggestions for policy changes as desired. That's not
an option available to me, and I was simply commenting on the fact
that we're recreating the same IPv6 routing table feedback system
which gave us our present "success" with the IPv4 routing table.
FYI,
/John
