[89044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Wed Mar 1 12:30:30 2006
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:29:56 -0500
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060301170517.27261.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:05:17AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell, the whole reason for these
> > > discussions is the insistence on the strict
> > > PA-addressing model, with no ability to advertise
> > PA
> > > space to other providers.
> >
> > The whole reason for the strict PA-addressing model
> > is concern over
> > whether open-slather on PI address space will result
> > in an Internet
> > that will scale.
>
> Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N
> hosts? If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN
> gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s. It
> would be a really long time before we had as many
> routes in the table as we do today, let alone the
> umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so
> badly.
I think you're missing that some people do odd
things with their IPs as well, like have one ASN and 35
different sites where they connect to their upstream Tier69.net
all with the same ASN. This means that their 35 offices/sites
will each need a /32, not one per the entire asn in the table.
And they may use different carriers in different
cities. Obviously this doesn't fit the definition that some have
of "autonomous system", as these are 35 different discrete networks
that share a globally unique identifier of sorts.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
