[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Apr 27 18:38:05 CEST 2010
Nick Hilliard wrote: [...] > > Which brings us back to vapour: we need to make a decision on this, because > deaggregation levels will have a dramatic effect on the future requirement > for large quantities of TCAM and related lookup. Unfortunately, we have no > basis on which to make this decision other than opinions and gut feeling. > If we rely on the latter, then a highly conservative approach would be well > advised. I think that the magic number which will get consensus, eventually (I hope) is important, but > Nick the really crucial issue, imho, is to also invent and install a magic stick which motivates people to respect the recommendations in reality. A brief peek into the most recent CIDR report for IPv4 on my disk gives me a certain "gut feeling" about what will happen without such a mechanism - (randomly picking out some "worst" offenders): --- 23Apr10 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description AS6389 4001 301 3700 92.5% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK AS22773 1141 76 1065 93.3% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC AS18566 1059 33 1026 96.9% COVAD - Covad Communications AS22047 549 50 499 90.9% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. So - a ratio of roughly 1:10 to be expected, from the most "liberal" or most "creative" parties doing de-aggregation? Wilfried
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]