[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mick O'Donovan
modonovan at btireland.net
Thu Apr 10 13:36:41 CEST 2014
> deployments. Now, before the big discussion starts: there is other > gear in the market that scales up to 2 million, etc., but I wanted to > point out that these are real-world hard limits, and the amount of "headroom" > we have between "what is out there today" (500k) and "what some of the > fairly widely deployed core routers can do today" (700k) is not so big > that we want to risk an explosion by factor 2. > > Gert Doering > — NetMaster Hi all, New to list contributions but thought I’d simply add a +1 to this. As a network operator that just recently had to make significant changes in our core network to cope with the fact that the routing table is currently circa 500k I would be supportive of any policy that maintains /22 as a minimum. Mick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]