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

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:30:34PM +0900, Masataka Ohta 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.

So that would be a maximum of 10.000 routing table entries (if we
can manage to keep it at "1 prefix per LIR").

> Does it mean that it is beneficial for you if RIRs have more
> power even though it sacrifices ISPs and users of the Internet
> by requiring routers with a lot more routing table entries
> than necessary?

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.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299