[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Moving forward...
Scott -
although I overall agree with you that an RRG solution for IPv4 would
be welcome, I am skeptical with the two reasons you provide:
First, it will be years before there are more IPv6 packets than IPv4
packets -- longer than the time frame in which we must get our new
technology deployed -- and efficient control of IPv4 forwarding is
important.
You are assuming that (some of) today's holders of PI prefixes will
switch to RRG's solution and withdraw their PI prefixes from the
global routing table. In my personal opinion, this is unlikely. Any
RRG solution will have its cost, at least in terms of the effort to
set it up. This cost will be a hurdle for today's PI prefix holders
to withdraw their prefixes.
More likely, IMO, is that the benefit of an RRG solution will come in
form of stricter guidelines for allocating *new* PI prefixes:
Applicants for PI prefixes can be required to use the RRG solution so
that the PI prefixes don't show up in the global routing table. But
this will apply only to new prefix allocations, not to existing ones.
And hence it will apply primarily to IPv6.
Second, the granularity of IPv4 allocations is very probably going to
go up dramatically in these final days, and that "state*rate" load
will not go away for a long time. We will have to carry it in routing
until (unless) we deal with multihoming, hijacking, etc. for IPv4.
Many of these smaller allocations will be provider-allocated, right?
RRG solutions won't be able to eliminate those from the global
routing table.
The remaining new PI allocations may not be numerous enough to have
a significant impact on the size and update rate of the global IPv4
routing table.
- Christian
--
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