[88736] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexei Roudnev)
Thu Feb 16 03:56:34 2006
From: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.net>
To: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>,
"Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:56:00 -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
How do you count # of networks? 8M means - 8M of independent, multihomed
companies. What is the reson to expect so many?
Don't forget that today's number of networks is multiplied few times because
you (foten) need to get more than 1
allocation. And what is a problem with 8M networks in next 8 years (if we
easily handle 200K just now)?
No, this model is well scalable and we better solve other, REAL problems,
not mistical _# of networks_ one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:31:56 +0100 (CET), "Mikael Abrahamsson"
> <swmike@swm.pp.se> said:
> [snip]
> > The current routing model doesn't scale. I don't want to sit 5 years
from
> > now needing a router that'll handle 8 million routes to get me through
> > the
> > next 5 years of route growth.
>
> agree!
>
> >
> > PI space for multihoming and AS number growth is a bad thing for scaling
> > and economics, however you look at it.
>
> agree!
>
> >
> > Shim6 would hopefully curb the prefix growth very early in the growth
> > curve as single entities won't need AS to multihome between two
different
> > ISPs.
>
> agree!
>
> [snip]
>
> All is well if shim6 succeeds it seems ... 5-10 years into the future.
> Do we all agree to postpone v6 till then?
>
> If not there's a need for an intermediary solution. To me it seems like
> people want 2 things:
>
> 1. A working solution. The only alternative with current technology is
> PI end-site assignments.
>
> 2. Reasonable predictability. To make ever-lasting technologies and
> policies may be the dream in some research communities. The rest of us
> have to work with what we got and accept that we have to upgrade and
> make substatial changes to our networks from time to time. An
> alternative to satisfy those who fear the long term effect of a growing
> routing-table could be temporary end-site assignments from dedicated
> address-blocks. At some point in the future, when new-and-mature
> technology exist, the RIR-community could decide on new policies and
> decide to re-claim the entire block on e.g. a 24-month notice.
>
> ... just my $.02 compromise ;)
>
> //per
> --
> Per Heldal
> http://heldal.eml.cc/
>
