North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
Hi Patrick, I agree, if anything I am advocating a spanking of those in the clueless category, thus reducing the table size so that up to 110K more PI space and corporate multi homing can occur without increasing the table further than today. Seems like a quick gain in flexibility and functionality for the corporate customers while curtailing the littering of those that should know better. Of course it begs the question when do we run out of AS numbers / PI space - maybe one of those events would now actually happen before routers collapses under the weight of route table from corporate multihoming once we have tided up the unnecessary PA deag. Or maybe... we will run out of corporates first! Which would have to be the best of outcomes, everyone multihomed how wants/needs plus a manageable route table without having run out of IPs or AS numbers. Or am I just living in fairy land? I guess without knowing the size of the wave of corporate foaming out the mouth to multihome it is difficult to know whether pushing back the flood of deagregated PA by 110K is enough to make a serious dent in the corporate wave or just a ripple to a problem that is too big to ever solve and enormous route table are inevitable and 100K extra routes from PA is neither here nor there at the end of the day????? Has anyone worked out any numbers / projections on this going forwards into the future? Ben -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: 20 January 2008 15:12 To: [email protected] Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] Ben, I believe you are correct that PA deaggregation is a huge problem, but some of that could be corporate multi-homing. (I don't know for certain whether it is greater or less than providers just being ninnies.) Lots of companies get a /24 from one upstream and announce it to two or more upstreams. That is, IMHO, a legitimate deaggregation, as opposed to a provider who is just too clueless aggregate. But before we go too far down this road, everyone here should realize that new PI space and PA deaggregation WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. Many corporations paying for Internet access will NOT be tied to a single provider. Period. Trying to tell them "you are too small, you should only let us big networks have our own space" is a silly argument which won't fly. The Internet is a business tool. Trying to make that tool less flexible, trying to tie the fate of a customer to the fate of a single provider, or trying force them to jump through more hoops than you have to jump through for the same redundancy / reliability is simply not realistic. And telling them it will cost some random network in some random other place a dollar a year for their additional flexibility / reliability / performance is not going to convince them not to do it. The number of these coAt least not while the Internet is still driven by commercial realities. (Which I personally think is a Very Good Thing - much better than the alternative.) Someone will take the customer's check, so the prefix will be in the table. And since you want to take your customers' checks to provide access to that ISP's customer, you will have to carry the prefix. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thrifty with table space. We just have to stop thinking that only the largest providers should be allowed to add a prefix to the table. At least if we are going to continue making money on the Internet. -- TTFN, patrick On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Ben Butler wrote: > > Hi, > > Out of curiosity was the reasoning also to charge the PA who are > deagregating? > > To restate there are 113,220 extra routes smaller than RIR minimums > out > of the /24:126,450 in the table. The today reality seems to be that > 113K of that 126K is probably being caused by existing networks > de-aggregating PA. > > While I would I would agree that corporate multihoming with PI has a > huge potential problem on the table in terms of number of prefixes. > Further more as BGP skills are becoming more common place and > Linux/Quagga skills the barrier to entry for a corporate is reducing > at > the same time their commercial reliance on and use of the Internet is > increasing. > > Corporate multihoming - if permitted - has the inevitable > consequence of > an extra prefix. > > PA deagreagtion - has the avoidable consequence of lots of extra > prefixes. > > I know who I would be charging first and maybe it would give the much > need incentive for them to clean house. We could then have some > number > up to 113K new multihomed corporate before we got back to where we are > today in terms of route table size. An interesting question to gauge > the size of the corporate multihoming potential problem is to guess > how > many there may be worldwide that would bother / try - I have no idea. > > I believe (possibly wrongly) that IPv6 doesn't really have a solution > for multihoming corporate with multiple allocations and weird shims > and > NAT configurations to get it to work - or have the RIRs decided on a > policy change yet and issuing PI blocks of IPv6 as well? > > Am I correct on my interpretation of the numbers for PA:PI smaller > prefix origins? > > Kind Regards > > Ben > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > William Herrin > Sent: 20 January 2008 11:06 > To: Patrick W. Gilmore > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and > terminology] > > > On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[email protected]xxxx> > wrote: >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough >>> numbers suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 >>> prefix in the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE) was then in the >>> neighborhood of $8000 USD per year. >> >> I haven't seen that work, but I am guessing this number is an >> aggregate (i.e. every cost to everyone on the 'Net combined), not >> per- > >> network? See, I'm just looking at that TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR >> number and thinking to myself, "um, yeah, right". :) > > Patrick, > > That was a worldwide total, yes. The cost per prefix per router is > obviously only measured in cents per year. > > You do know that Cisco's sales are north of $20B per year, right? > Juniper, which sells few products that aren't DFZ routers, also posts > annual revenues well north of $1B. > > >> Feel free to explain how confused I am. (But be warned, I am not >> going to believe it costs $2B/year to run a multi-homed network with >> two full feeds. :) > > The thread started here: > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008927.html > It was originally an argument of about the cost of doing PI for IPv6, > which according to Cisco product literature consumes twice the > amount of > space in the FIB as routes for IPv4. > > I encourage you to critique the numbers and then add them up for > yourself. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >
|