Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Gert Doering wrote:

>>>>In favour of *what* to replace it?
>>>
>>>RIR membership.
>>
>>No. It is proven not to scale.

> "Proven"?  When, where, by whom, based on what data?
> 
> There are less than 10.000 LIRs in existance today, all RIRs combined.

According to my upper bound, it's already unnecessarily too large.
 
> 10.000 routing table entries is something far below the near 140.000 we 
> have today in IPv4.  While I'm seriously unhappy with the 140.000 IPv4
> routes, it *does* scale up to fairly insane numbers.

Of course, you can have as many routing table entries as you want,
as long as backbone routers, speed of which degrade as their routing
table bloat, have large enough routing table.

However, routing table does cost. High speed memory for backbone
routers costs a lot.

The cost must be paid by ISPs and, then, by users.

If the size of global routing table is limited by a hard upper
bound, it simplifies the design of routers a lot (you can put
a backbone router (or many of them) with a global routing table
in a chip), reduces cost of routers a lot and increases speed
of routers a lot.

Note that, for scalable (thus, end to end) site multihoming properly
work, all the sites are required to circulate global routing table
within the sites.


							Masataka Ohta