RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
% What is relevant, IMHO, is divining whether the BGP4 system
% for IPv4 will hit a catastrophic scaling limit within a foreseeable
% timescale.
%
% If the answer is 'yes' we need a first-class solution for IPv4;
% if the answer is 'no' we only need a first-class solution for IPv6.
%
% Since my divination skills are weak, it seems safer to seek a
% first-class solution for both.

John Scudder (Juniper) had a presentation on BGP and FIB/RIB
scaling at NANOG in Toronto a year or so back (shortly after
the IAB Workshop):

   <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-scudder.pdf>


His last slide (URL above) is directly on-topic and says (quote):

      We can throw hardware at FIB scaling for at least
      the next decade or so, with existing technology
         • Several big­FIB boxes shipping now

      This provides time to research routing/addressing
      architectures
         • Really don’t want to build Internet on a R/A
           architecture that was hacked up quick under
          deadline pressure

      BGP­free core can protect core (“P”) router FIBs
        • Deployed today


If one believes that, and following Brian's logic above,
then a first-class architectural approach for only IPv6
ought to be sufficient/acceptable as a Routing RG
output.

What do the big router implementers on this list
think about the question of when we will hit a
"catastrophic" scaling limit ?


Yours,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com




--
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