North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: CIDR Report

  • From: Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Date: Sat May 13 17:52:04 2000

> 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.