5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Previous message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Next message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at karoshi.com
bmanning at karoshi.com
Wed May 30 18:01:32 CEST 2007
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:03:52AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> writes: > > > Today we think of a 5,000,000 prefix Internet as an impossibility. > > No hardware could ever do that. However, 20 years on I'm not sure > > a 5 million route Internet will be surprising to anyone. > > Who is the "we" you refer to above/ > > Actually, quite a few people are worried that a 5M prefix Internet is > a possibility. There are also debates (i.e., no consensus) that when > that happens, routers will actually be able to cope with the load in > practice. > hum... given that w/ a /32 "boundary" - there exists the possibility of 2x32 routing table entries... clearly the /32 boundary is not to preserve routing table slots. if one is seriously considering a 1-5m entry routing table then it becomes important to (proxy) aggregate to the /8 or /9 level to keep within the 1 to 5m entries. --bill
- Previous message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Next message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]