[28699] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: CIDR Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer (E-mail))
Sat May 13 13:37:44 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland Meyer (E-mail)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Mikael Abrahamsson'" <swmike@swm.pp.se>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:35:04 -0700
Message-ID: <001401bfbd01$9391b500$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005131102100.15742-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I've mentioned this before, so I'll just note it lightly.
There are a growing number of companies (dot-coms are only one of them) =
that have small head-count (<4000), but are spread out from Sydney to =
New York, with many "lone eagles" in the MST zone. They could probably =
do everything on a portable /24. However, with everyone filtering out =
announcements less than /20, such companies are encouraged to drop NAT, =
and use other methods to justify a /19, just so they can participate in =
peering (I won't say whom, one is a CTI development company). The VPN =
solution is cute, but the entire VP then becomes single-homed, at the =
VPN gateway (The alternative is that each location gets their own /24, =
linked by a VPN, to the other /24s, there are serious performance issues =
with this approach and hte /24 may only represent a single actual user). =
All of this burns IP addresses.=20
The point: Filtering BGP announcements costs in IP space allocations. =
There is a mathmatical relationship between IP address allocations, =
table sizes, and routing policies. Also, part of the relationship is =
determined by client business requirements.
Organizations are becomeing more geophysically diffused, with many =
end-nodes actually participating in multiple organizations. This is only =
starting now (I still see over 100K nodes actually doing this), it will =
get much worse.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 2:10 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: CIDR Report
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sat, 13 May 2000 pjnesser@Nesser.COM wrote:
>=20
> > But if you look at the last 250 days or so you see that the=20
> table has
> > grown by more than 16k routes. So we are seeing growth at=20
> 300% of what we
> > saw for the last 5 plus years. It also looks annoyingly=20
> geometric or
> > perhaps exponential, instead of the nice linear growth=20
> since CIDR was
> > introduced. =20
>=20
> If you just check from 01/01/99 to date then it looks linear=20
> or at least
> close to linear.
> =20
> I guess it *could* be that growing amount of new companies getting
> internet access is increasing. Is there any data that show "CIDR GAIN"
> from the cidr report, so we can see if the increase corresponds to an
> increase in (perhaps unneccessary) smaller announcements in=20
> larger blocks,
> or if it is actually just a lot more blocks allocated that needs to be
> routed. Any stats on arin/ripe/apnic new allocations of=20
> blocks in the same
> timeframe? Both in terms of IP adresses and in number of blocks of IP
> adresses. This would also give us some kind of hint as to=20
> when IPv4 space
> will be exhausted (or are there already projections about this?)
>=20
> --=20
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>=20
