North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: CIDR Report
> Danny McPherson: Saturday, May 13, 2000 1:47 PM > > > None of these are big enough to justify their own backbone > operations or to > > buy a backbone from someone else, or there wouldn't be a > problem. Paying scads > > of extortion money is also problematic (cheaper to simply > burn the IP addresses). > > > > I am NOT advocating tossing all of that out. I am simply > bringing up a > > problem condition. Please, don't shoot the messenger, or > otherwise get > > defensive (return fire is a bitch). > > Nope, all of these are reasonable, the ones that aren't are, > for example, > where folks have a single connection, or multi-home only to a > single provider. Agreed, peering on a single connection is a canard. However, there is a cause/effect relationship with the latter. They can't multi-home to multiple providers because they aren't big enough (can't justify the cost). Which is precisely part of the problem that I am presenting here. > > What I am bringing up here is that new, information-age companies, > > as predicted in MegaTrends over 10 years ago, are now starting to > > appear. They are very diffused (sparse population, over very large > > areas of the globe) and have connectivity needs which are > both critical, > > yet very different from click-n-morter customers that the Big8 was > > built up to handle (either classful or classless). The > current architecture > > is not handeling them very well. > > > > The problem is currently in it's infancy, it will get much worse. > > I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Actually, I see > reliability and > availability feeding into all these other issues as well. The reason this is an issue is exactly because they want reliability and availability, HA requirements. > It just that some of the folks advocating portability and > deaggregation are > using "route table size doesn't matter anymore" as an > argument, when it > absolutely does matter, especially if we plan to make the > Internet more > reliable, and less vulnerable. I actually agree with you here as well. relying on infinite router table growth is not a scalable strategy. We need something else.