[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Moving forward... IPv4 now, IPv6 less urgent and perhaps more ambitious



Bill,

On Jun 10, 2008, at 7:14 AM, William Herrin wrote:
http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html
...
If you want to challenge the methodology, I respectfully ask that you
find someone who does cost analysis for a living to assist you with
the particulars.

Since I do not have ready access to such an individual, I'll simply say that your methodology does not appear to match my intuition or what I know about marginal costs. However, it isn't really relevant -- I was just curious how you came up with that number.

Shifting focus to IPv6 abandons the problem.
Not really, since generally IPv6 routes and IPv4 routes are combined when
computing routing load.
If we do nothing, by what date do you expect IPv6 to exceed even 2% of
the total routing load?

Invalid measure since the theory is that IPv6 won't be as deaggregated unnecessarily as IPv4. Of course, I don't really believe that theory, but that's a separate topic. A more reasonable measure would likely be at what date to I expect IPv6-reachable sites to exceed even 2% of the IPv4 reachable sites. I'd pick a number out of the air and say something like 5 years after RIR IPv4 runout.

However, I'd argue this isn't really relevant either. As I said in my note to Robin (ignoring all the fanciful scenarios), if we make IPv4 routing scale better, all it would seem to do would be to promote deployment of more NAT. I'm not sure this is all that a desirable longer term goal (which is my understanding of RRG efforts) -- you'd end up with a universe of NATv4 endpoints, possibly even flat routed down to /32s (which might even be feasible by the time it became an issue).

Pragmatically speaking, I believe RRG should be looking at a desirable future: one that gets us out of the scaling hole while at the same time allowing for end point identifier stability in the face of network topology changes. Since I think we've already demonstrated IPv4 can't provide end point identifier stability (even if we could make the scaling hole magically go away), it seems to me we should be focused on a solution that we know can (if not will) provide for end point identifier stability.

Regards,
-drc


--
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