Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal () eml cc>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:45:33 +0100



On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:31:56 +0100 (CET), "Mikael Abrahamsson"
<swmike () swm pp se> said:
[snip] 
The current routing model doesn't scale. I don't want to sit 5 years from 
now needing a router that'll handle 8 million routes to get me through
the 
next 5 years of route growth.

agree!


PI space for multihoming and AS number growth is a bad thing for scaling 
and economics, however you look at it.

agree!


Shim6 would hopefully curb the prefix growth very early in the growth 
curve as single entities won't need AS to multihome between two different 
ISPs.

agree!

[snip]

All is well if shim6 succeeds it seems ... 5-10 years into the future.
Do we all agree to postpone v6 till then?

If not there's a need for an intermediary solution. To me it seems like
people want 2 things:

1. A working solution. The only alternative with current technology is
PI end-site assignments.

2. Reasonable predictability. To make ever-lasting technologies and
policies may be the dream in some research communities. The rest of us
have to work with what we got and accept that we have to upgrade and
make substatial changes to our networks from time to time. An
alternative to satisfy those who fear the long term effect of a growing
routing-table could be temporary end-site assignments from dedicated
address-blocks. At some point in the future, when new-and-mature
technology exist, the RIR-community could decide on new policies and
decide to re-claim the entire block on e.g. a 24-month notice. 

... just my $.02 compromise ;)

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault