[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:51:59 +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>It was never tried so how can you say that it was broken
>by design?
I also never tried to drive my car with 200km/h against
a tree but I can tell you definately its no good ...

Geographical hierachies require a interconnection concept
which is radically different from the concept required for a
*competitive* ISP market. They would require "leading"
operators and "sub-level" operators dependent from them.

The time of "postal office" monopolies is over,
*and this is good so*. 

>New routers? Since when does BGP or any routing protocol
>have to run on the routers themselves. Look inside a modern
>router and you will often see that the routing and
>packet forwarding decisions are done on separate CPUs.
>And there are boxes on the market that do "route optimization"
>which is just a way of taking the routing decisions outside
>of the routers themselves.
At the end of day one
- might require an update of a underdimensioned forwarding engine.
- a new router because $VENDOR might not be willing to implement
  "IPv6-BGP 4+x" on an old box.
  I am not talking about *can't* implement, but the chance is high
  that $VENDOR sees this as an oportunity to gain additional
  $REVENUE. If you have a ten year old car, you probably won't
  get an "update" for the latest engine.

The whole table discussion is just because of this resource-limiting
policy build by several $VENDORS and some operators living in
the past century with good old postal telco office "offical" services
("Bundespost").

Take 1 Mio. prefixes with 100 Byte (!) each. And 100 Byte is a *lot*,
even with communities and paths, which even can be combined
for several prefixes together in memory.

This is 100 MByte. No problem today. Why do we talk about the
table size here ?

And in fact, if one would combine all IPv6 prefixes of some ISP
in a *bundle* (remember my level 1/2 proposal), with e.g. 8 Byte
routable address part, one mask length byte plus 7 bytes other stuff,
we are talking about 16 bytes.

10 Mio. (!) prefixes are then 160 MBytes. Again no problem today.

In this scenario you might give each customer its own prefix,
if he want's one or not ...

Conclusion: The "table problem" is a pseudo-problem and is
easily solvalble with modern hardware.
With more than 500K to 1 Mio. prefixes it might be usefull to
think of a new two level BGP4.
Below that: Take BGP4 as it is, no problem.
+20K IPv6 Routes: Again no problem.
We had an 30% increase in the number of IPv4 Routes and
*nothing* happened.

I am a friend of open words:
- The *real* problem is that some big companies would be happy with a
  hierachical structure - of course with them on top of the hierachy :-| -
  and with totally dependend customers and smaller ISP's.
- And there is a reluctance to invest into modern hardware,
  probably because of the dumping price offers within the ISP market.

* These * are the points, not technology, not hardware or software.

Best Regards
Oliver



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0