North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: A call for the future. Was: Re: Verio Decides what parts ofthe internet to drop
The phone system doesn't require anything close to millions of routes for LNP. Instead, at the time of call setup, there is a lookup that performs the translation between the portable number (which is the logical address) and the physical address (which to date is still mostly statically routed using a well-defined hierarchy based upon physical location). The LNP translation is quite akin to that of a DNS lookup, which is again done at the beginning of an IP "conversation". Prabhu Kai Schlichting wrote: > > At 04:14 PM 12/6/99 -0800, Austin Schutz wrote: > > > >> In the far term as space becomes scarce we will need to find a solution > > >>to wasted B space, but that is several years out. Perhaps by that time routers > > >>will have so much memory and CPU as to make an extra ~4 million possible routes > > >>negligible. > > > > > >The danger of /17 blocks in B space is limited to 64*256 more routes > > >(16 k more, maximum). > > > > Yes, you could arbitrarily say /17 is a fair border, and then people > >would complain about their /18s being unreachable. The 4 million number > >reflects 64 * 2^16 theoretical /24 routes - 64 * 256 current theoretical /16 > >routes = 4177920 routes. I haven't heard (yet) of people complaining about not > >being able to get /25 to /32 routes globally routable. > > Perhaps a somewhat less arbitrary limit corresponding to the smallest > >allocation made by ARIN would be in order. That would currently be 2^(20 - 16) > > * 64 * 256 - 64 * 256 = 245760 extra routes. Still a pretty highg number, but > >I imagine it would take several years to break up the existing Bs. > > > > Austin > > And what I'd really like to know: how many millions and billions were spent > by domestic telcos to accomodate and ultimately deflect anti-trust action > heading their way regaring local, 800 (and soon: cellular, at last!) > number portability ? (lets call it xNP) > > I mean: there must be an order of magnitude of increased HD space, > RAM and SS7 network bandwidth in use right now due to xNP. > Which means that the telcos probably asked their vendors to provide > such capabilities for their switches - and got what they asked for! > > Lets face it: if the US PSTN can accomodate tens of millions of essentially > freely-routed (well, the stubs of the SS7 network are certainly very static, > heh) phone numbers, it must be possible to scale the Internet beyond such > a small pisser: a 1/4 million routes in the BGP table. > > Given that more and more end-user organizations realize that it's > impossible to do proper large-scale business on the Internet without > "cheating" allocation policies in gross and wasteful ways in order to > create proper load-balancable (uh, I am sticking my head out here) > multi-homed networks, a change in attitude amoung us implementors and > R&D folks is in urgent need: are we constrained merely by our small minds, > equipment limitations and current software implementations and > protocols, or have we indeed hit a fundamental brickwall with BGP-4, > as some scary early findings of CAIDA seem to suggest ? > > As network operators, I think we should prepare for the equivalent > of the US running out of 10-digit phone numbers, a situation that > might make Y2K look like a footnote in global telco history: > > - IPv6 is not the answer to our routability problems, but it will vastly > accelerate the reachability problems we already have. Provider-based > prefixing will be a breaking dike once it becomes obvious to people > that geographical or organizational hierarchies cannot be dictated > over business needs. > - organizations must be relieved from wasteful and expensive renumbering > processes as much as possible, especially since organizational growth > will essentially be infinite, either in numbers of organizations, > or hosts connected per organization. > - there will be exactly one road to Rome: one organization, one route per > logical location. Read my lips. > > There can be no denial that this is where things are going. You may not > like it, but this is where its headed right now, with all the ugly > side effects of IP space waste and cheating on allocations just to > overcome some basic operational problems. > > Lets start preparing for this, as we will do this not because it's easy > and apparent, but because hard business-needs are going to drive us this > way in at most a year or two, with overwhelming benefits to endusers of IP > space outweighing all efforts to overcome the current limitations. > > All ends and odds on this are open, as far as technology, implementation and > settlement models (if any) is concerned, and I'd welcome someone experienced > with setting up an IETF WG stepping forward. Title for such a WG ? > "Internet Routing and Address Space Use of the Future". If such WG fitting > such an agenda already exists, please kindly point this out to me. > > Thank you. > > -- > [email protected] "Just say No" to Spam Kai Schlichting > Palo Alto, New York, You name it Sophisticated Technical Peon > Kai's SpamShield <tm> is FREE! http://SpamShield.Conti.nu > | | > LeasedLines-FrameRelay-IPLs-ISDN-PPP-Cisco-Consulting-VoiceFax-Data-Muxes > WorldWideWebAnything-Intranets-NetAdmin-UnixAdmin-Security-ReallyHardMath ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 978-264-4900 x125 Director, Prod. Mgmt. FAX: 978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: [email protected] 50 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|