North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing

  • From: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Fri Mar 03 13:51:56 2006

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email protected]>
On 1-mrt-2006, at 18:05, David Barak wrote:
Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N hosts?
2 x relatively small is a lot less than 10 x relatively large. Or, in other
words: on the host you only pay if you actually communicate. In
routers, you pay more as there is more routing information, whether
the extra information is used or not.
OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't have professional admins. It'll be a long, long time (if ever) until shim6 is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet their company on host-based multihoming.

If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN
gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s.  It
would be a really long time before we had as many
routes in the table as we do today, let alone the
umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so
1. We've already walked the edge of the cliff several times (CIDR had to be implemented in a big hurry, later flap dampening and prefix length filtering were needed)
At least this time we know what the likely problems are, and we can build in safeguards that can be quickly implemented if we get too close to the edge. Not that I agree we'll even get there...

2. We'll have to live with IPv6 a long time
Perhaps. I know the goal was for it to last 100 years, but what technology has ever lasted that long without significant improvements that altered it almost beyond recognition?

3. Route processing and FIB lookups scale worse than linear
With an mtrie+ FIB, routing lookups scale far, far better than linear. What matters is the length of the prefix being matched, not how many there are.

TCAMs scale linearly, provided you can build them big enough (and costs certainly aren't linear).

4. If the global routing table meltdown happens, it will be extremely costly in a short time
5. Even if the meltdown doesn't happen a smaller routing table makes everything cheaper and gives us more implementation options (5000 entry TCAM is nice, 500000 entries not so much as it basically uses 100 times as much power)

6. Moore can't go on forever, there are physical limitations
Every time folks claim that, someone makes a breakthrough that continues the curve. Surely we can't count on this forever, but so far money has consistently trumped "physical limitations".

But the most important thing we should remember is that currently, routing table growth is artificially limited by relatively strict requirements for getting a /24 or larger. With IPv6 this goes away, and we don't know how many people will want to multihome then.
The requirements for getting a /24 are pretty darn lax, actually, and the current proposals for PI space being debated within ARIN are significantly more restrictive.

The reality today is that v4 routing tables are well within our capabilities and growing slowly. If we were on the verge of another serious problem, like we where when the CIDR fire drill happened, ISPs could easily cut the tables in half simply by filtering prefixes longer than RIR minima.


Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin