Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

[Mikael Abrahamsson swmike@localhost]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Sascha Lenz wrote:

> Although one should think about what happens if /24 gets "not routable"
> due to the upcoming next round of memory restrains in BGP routers.
> Is it /23 then as next minimum?
Well, the larger ISPs use routers that can handle more than 240k routes, 
and as long as they carry the routes, if smaller ISPs filter they will 
soon see a loss of customers due to this. I also forsee these smaller ISPs 
getting a default-route as well from their upstreams to handle their 
inability to handle all routes.
> I didn't really get any comments on this a week ago on the discussion
> leading to this proposal, so i assume, it's not an issue to think about
> right now for most people?
Well, IPv6 solves the addressing issue but it does nothing for the routing 
issue. Multihoming in IPv6 is still an issue being debated due to exact 
same reasons you mention.
> . o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing
> table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment
> relevant..)
Probably because the solution is a radical change from how things are done 
today and people are quite hesitant to commit to a paradigm shift, 
especially since the "throw faster hardware at the problem" has worked so 
far?
It would of course be interesting to send the proposal to groups like 
NANOG and see their reaction, as there are quite a lot of more routing 
people there that cares less for addressing.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@localhost