RE: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> On the other hand, such behavior is unacceptable from a "Internet
> citizenship" perspective and does not address the similar business
issues
> that moderate size corporations (e.g., 100,000 employees) have, which
> would influence them to behave in a manner similar to the Fortune 100.
But
> if moderate size corporations do this, then why not smallish
corporations
> (e.g., 20,000 employees) act similarly? After all, they have similar
> "bottom line" concerns, which are certainly as valid as those of the
> Fortune 100. And if they behave similarly, then how about small
companies?
> And before you know it, aggregation is out the window, and that is A
Very
> Bad Thing.

Is it, really? The IPv4 routing tables currently have about 100,000
entries, and the sky is not falling. So we should assume that 100,000
entries is OK now, in 2004. If I remember correctly, the equivalent
limit was about 10,000 entries in 2004, ten times less ten years ago. We
might imagine that the limit will be ten times higher ten years from
now.

The entire earth population is not expected to reach 10 billion people
any time soon, which means there cannot possibly be more than 100,000
companies with 100,000 employees world wide, or a million companies with
10,000 employees. This pretty much implies that we could flat-route all
the companies with 100,000 employees now, and all of those with 10,000
employees ten years from now...

-- Christian Huitema