[routing-wg]On Vince's talk
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]On Vince's talk
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Thu Oct 5 21:53:45 CEST 2006
Hello; On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 4-okt-2006, at 16:10, Joao Damas wrote: > >> In addition, while watching Vince's presentation, and seeing how >> the little IPv6 would contribute to the total sum of routes one >> would be seeing announced to the Internet (internal routes are >> each ISP's problem in this context, to some extent) I was >> wondering what would actually happen towards the time around which >> *new* IPv4 addresses would become scarce and people are forced to >> change the way IPv4 is used (eg, by splitting current allocations >> and trading those smaller chunks). > > Well, obviously that wouldn't be good. The question is how bad it > would get? I think the current trends in routing table growth would > continue more or less the same as before in the years immediately > following the depletion of the free IPv4 address pools, as the > underlying need remains the same and people will still find a way > to get an address block, even though they probably won't get it > from a RIR and it's going to be smaller than they'd like. > > (Although the RIRs will get address space back from people that > don't need it anymore, so they'll likely be able to continue to > give out small blocks. 90% of all allocations are responsible for > only 10% of the address space = less than a /8 a year.) > >> Then the question might become, what would the mess look like if >> there is no IPv6 deployment? and does the picture Vince hinted at >> become any worse in the absence of IPv6 deployment, even with the >> less than perfect routing solutions currently available? > > Ah, but there already is IPv6 deployment. I use it every day. A > quarter or so of the traffic generated at RIPE meetings is IPv6. > 0.1% of all traffic flowing over the AMS-IX is IPv6. Going out on a > limb here, that figure suggests that 3% of all systems exchanging > traffic over the AMS-IX are IPv6-enabled. Logic: for 97% of all > systems, 100% of their traffic is IPv4, but for the other 3%, 97% > would be IPv4 and 3% IPv6, for a total of 0.97 + 0.03 * 0.97 = > 0,999% of all traffic being IPv4. There is probably something else > that generates the majority of the 130 Mbps of IPv6 traffic on AMS- > IX, but it's still an average of 130 Mbps, which is probably more > than the IPv4 traffic 15 years ago. I cannot resist pointing out here that 2.2 % of the ASNs and 4.2% of the IPv4 address blocks are multicast enabled, as seen from here http://www.multicasttech.com/status/ and ~ 2% of the Abilene backbone netflow traffic is IPv4 ASM multicast, as seen here http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/longit/perc-multicast-octets.png Regards Marshall > > Coming back to routing: seeing recent developments in address > policies and given the notion that the same people who made a mess > of the IPv4 routing table will be running IPv6 at some point, I > think the basic problem will remain the same. The routing table for > IPv6 + IPv4 will probably be quite similar to the one for IPv4 > without IPv6, at least until either the effects of massive IPv4 > scarcity or retiring of IPv4 in favor of IPv6 will/would become > noticeable, either of which will be a long way off. > > Last year the routing table increased by 16%. That gives us (in > thousands): > > 2007 ~ 210 > 2008 ~ 240 > 2009 ~ 280 > 2010 ~ 325 > 2011 ~ 375 > 2012 ~ 435 > 2013 ~ 500 > > So if I were to buy an expensive router I would certainly want it > to be able to carry half a million prefixes in its FIB table, and > have enough RP memory for several million BGP table entries. > Linecards with 512 MB RAM can be had today, and assuming that a FIB > entry is less than a kilobyte seems reasonable but of course > assumptions are dangerous. The problem is probably the jump to 64 > bit RP CPUs because the 2 gigabyte barrier will be a problem in the > forseeable future. > > I agree that internal routes can be a problem in large ASes, but > that's just a question of proper engineering: unlike in inter- > domain routing, in internal routing there are aggregation > mechanisms that can be made to work effectively. > > I would be nice if we could create similar mechanisms for BGP. The > whole notion that when someone in Nairobi starts announcing a bunch > of more specifics to his neighbor, EVERY BGP router in the world > must process these extra prefixes and then search through them for > every packet that is forwarded, is seriously broken. > > As for my comments during Vince's talk: > > (Ugh, I think the APNIC website has an IPv6 PMTUD problem, pages > take forever to load... Works better with javascript disabled.) > > http://www.apnic.net/news/hot-topics/index.html#ip-addressing >
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]On Vince's talk
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]