[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jun 22 13:49:12 CEST 2004
Hi, On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:30:34PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >> In favour of *what* to replace it? > > RIR membership. > No. It is proven not to scale. "Proven"? When, where, by whom, based on what data? There are less than 10.000 LIRs in existance today, all RIRs combined. So that would be a maximum of 10.000 routing table entries (if we can manage to keep it at "1 prefix per LIR"). > Does it mean that it is beneficial for you if RIRs have more > power even though it sacrifices ISPs and users of the Internet > by requiring routers with a lot more routing table entries > than necessary? 10.000 routing table entries is something far below the near 140.000 we have today in IPv4. While I'm seriously unhappy with the 140.000 IPv4 routes, it *does* scale up to fairly insane numbers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]