[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jon Lawrence
jon at lawrence.org.uk
Fri Mar 25 00:41:18 CET 2005
On Thursday 24 March 2005 21:54, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:47:12PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote: > > Yes, I agree that they are PI in disguise. But they are still a way of > > saying to general end users that there's no such thing as PI space - by > > general end users, I mean corporations not people like TLD (or ccTLD) > > operators (they should know full well what's what). Or are we just going > > to say, if you can create a good enough case then PI exists - come and > > get it. > > PI will come or IPv6 not fly. Face it. > > > If we (as in RIPE) are going to start handing out longer than /32's > > then all the RIR's have to make it abundantly clear that they don't > > support the idea of /32 filters > > ARIN and LACNIC already do. RIPE (not NCC) folks are still trying to > make policy around people's failure to properly maintain filters. It's > like capitulating before the battle even started (looking at actual > deployment out there, the few who don't get it [filtering] will learn > it the hard way later). > > > or should they (RIR's) make allocations/assignments (call them what > > you will) from a global pool for these micro allocations and everyone > > then shouts about how this specific /32 shouldn't be filtered. > > Yes. > > ARIN: http://www.arin.net/registration/ipv6/micro_alloc.html > (2001:0500::/29) > LACNIC: http://lacnic.net/en/registro/index.html > "IPv6: 2001:1200::/23 (minimum allocation /48)" > "NAPs/IXP in the region: [...] 2001:12f8::/32" > > So basically you have to (judging from above statement) expect valid /48 > announcements from whole LACNIC space. > > And from ARIN space within 2001:500::/29. > > > How soon do we think the routing tables are going to become > > unmanageable (and I mean unmanageable by the routers themselves) ?? > > 3 years, 5 years ?? > > Can you give some well-funded projection, or just hand-waving FUD? I can't give any projections - That's why I asked :) I'm sure someone could work out given the current growth rate, how long it would take to cripple todays routers. > > > Perhaps we ought to be asking the people who design/build the routers > > what they think their kit will be capable of by then. > > They say that they test their RPs for 1 million RIB routes since years. > Not the (then) high-end gear you have bought ten years ago, or even only > a few years ago where you may have made questionable and/or short-sighted > purchase decisions. > > > We have seen large increases (in % terms) of what routers can now do > > compared to 5 years ago, what's to say we're not going to see even > > bigger % increases over the next 5 years. > > We don't need. We don't even push (good) 5-year old gear to the limits > with today's IPv4 junk DFZ RIB. Give every IPv6 ASN a prefix to announce > and we'll add about 10-15% to this RIB. Big deal? I strongly disagree. > We don't push them now ?? - even the big guys ?? If even they don't push their routers hard, then even with phenomenal growth over the next 5 years or so then what ever the current routers are then will probably be able to cope. If the routers can cope then the size of the routing table becomes a non issue - that's what I'm trying to say. Jon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]