[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Idea for shooting down
- To: Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>
- Subject: Re: [RRG] Idea for shooting down
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:38:16 +1300
- Cc: RRG <rrg@psg.com>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dhPTAqyUWaw7j9Ee4WGyR/IQDuCdoZLXBT5ZXY2nPwt7lgYHVo+3tQNic2ZOGZL5aLlUdXtWoR9SIdyVgm3aLSYDZntvtQiNoIg3aT980uttK1tHNlT6oaTA7hhblgWC0Cb/XIHL2i4Vo4t/f3FVwFhRKgrkTcnw5e7EPjFRIK0=
- In-reply-to: <232301.54774.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
- Organization: University of Auckland
- References: <232301.54774.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
On 2007-11-23 14:59, Peter Sherbin wrote:
A level s assumes 10^7 to 10^8 prefixes. If a household or a person is looked at as
a non-transit site then should we expect about 3*10^9 prefixes at the s level?
No, I don't see SOHO networks appearing at this level; it will be local ISPs
that we see as WAN prefixes. (OK, there is a geek minority that may want their
SOHO network multihomed, but surely not enough to matter.)
So I'm thinking of a network with at least 10^10 hosts, but three orders of
magnitude fewer WAN prefixes at level s.
Is there an empirical evidence that the ratio is always about 1:10 for Ps+x ->
Ps+x+1?
No. It's a design choice, if you like.
How much effort is required for pro bono formation of the initial Level 2, Region1?
What is the minimum number and the tier of ISPs that need to be involved?
I think it could crystallize around quite a small number of ISPs. The number who
could sit together in the bar at some *NOG meeting, for example. If the model
works at all, it has to work that way. Big bangs don't work.
Brian
Thanks,
Peter
--- Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
For a few weeks I've been mulling over what is probably
an unrealistic idea that amounts to adding hierarchy
to locator mapping. It's really quite hard to explain in
pure ASCII and I missed the deadline anyway, but here
it is for comments:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/DFZng.pdf
Brian
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg