[address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth

Are we really making an issue out of things that might not fit in a DFZ 30 years
from now under the restrictions current - potentially already old(er) hardware
has today? Who is really expecting to run the same boxes they do today 10 years
from now - let alone 30 years?

Jasper

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 1:42 PM
To: Sascha Lenz
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Sascha Lenz wrote:

> And why do you have gear that got no problem with an exploding IPv4
> table after exhaustion, but can't cope with 20k IPv6 prefixes? I still
> don't get that. Please, someone finally explain to me why 20k or even
> 100k IPv6 Prefixes in the DFZ is a problem, my lab says, even my 5year
> old Ciscos and Junipers have no problems with that right now. The
> default for an old Sup720 is 500k IPv4 + 250k IPv6 prefixes or so for
> example (IIRC, was some time ago i tested that).

20k isn't a problem, 100k isn't really a problem, potentially 5M 30 years
down the line might be a problem, 50M is most likely a problem.

Right now the PI administration and implementation process is a barrier
for entry, but if this changes then the amount of people who will want
(and will get) PI might explode. Therefore the situation needs to be
monitored, because having all core routers in the world keep track of
every little entity who wants to redundantly connect to the Internet isn't
going to scale.

The real solution is to have end systems handle session handover between
multiple addresses it has, but there seems to be pitifully little traction
for that.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se




Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer