|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
On 11-sep-2005, at 19:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers. Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet, somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the former.Well, if you don't know the number of multihomers you can't be sure that their routes will fit inside a RIB or a FIB. It's that simple. In fact, I would think it's the same for v4. Do you disagree? And if so, why?I believe that in IPv4 today there is a lot of unrealized multihoming potential. Today, multihoming is difficult because you need address space and you have to set up BGP, and people think it's hard to get an AS number. If all of those difficulties were to go away, I think a lot more people would multihome. And of course the internet is becoming a critical resource for more and more organizations, which in itself should lead to more multihoming. 2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS) will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technology. Right, 'cause we all know tomorrow's problems need to be solved with today's technology. But let's try it anyway.Who is using hyperbole now? You're perfectly welcome to apply Moore's law, but a while ago there was someone who argued that he could install 50k routes in a second in his implementation. That's not what existing J and C gear can do, so I'm assuming there are reasons why their performance isn't better than it is today. So if you say you can handle 1M routes in 2 years and 8M in another 5, no argument from me. But if you make it 20M in 2 years and 500M in another 5, I'll want to see how that's going to happen. As per RAS' post, reducing the growth of the table to equal the growth of ASNs would be a huge win.But a one time one, so it's meaningless. In v6 the AS-to-prefix ratio is already 1.4 so we're already there. A problem which is, in fact, solvable with "today's technology". What is a problem that is in fact solvable with today's technology? So, despite your completely silly and unreasonable constraints (kinda like "each home in the world being multihomed"), the problem is still solvable.You haven't produced either of the two figures required to show that multihoming scales, so you don't get to reach this conclusion. Keeping small providers, hosters, enterprises, schools, etc., who do not want to be tied to a single provider from multihoming is a huge loss. I agree. What requirements do you have that are fundamentally incompatible with using multiple addresses?And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough.
|