Noel,
Not so, if topologies were aggregated instead of user addresses (and if you agreed to improve/develop any further your Nimrod/PNNI hierarchy as to overcome its defficiencies). A (different kind of) FIB with 75600 entries would be the absolut maximum for eternity, which btw were accomplished by blowing up rather than by shrinking a (different kind of) RIB of approx. 2000 entries.
Agreed, some vendors like to sell bigger and bigger boxes. But such small boxes could be manufactured by many more vendors, would be less expensive, could be deployed by bigger numbers and ease tighter meshing. Yes, business models do change from time to time :-)
Heiner
-------- Kabel E-Mail Reply ---------------
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
To : rrg@psg.com
Date: 03.09.2008 01:58:28
> From: Stephen Sprunk
> We _already_ have a scalable solution that requires end-sites to
> renumber: RFC 4192. The target market rolled their eyes and got the
> RIRs to change policy to allow PI assignments in IPv6 .. rather than
> even give it a try because the very concept was so unacceptable.
This message triggered a rather depressing thought.
As long as the registries continue to hand out PI space, and as long as the
ISP's continue to accept and advertise them, most of this whole RRF effort is
an utter waste of time. (Specifically, any designs which assume *any* effort
on the part of users/etc are total non-starters.)
(This, of course, means that the ISP's, as a community, will have to deal
with the consequences of larger and larger routing tables. I.e. they'll have
to buy bigger and bigger boxes from the router vendors - this will of course
make the vendors happy, but I digress... But that's their problem...)
For us, as long as ISP's continue to accept any/all PI addresses, we're
wasting our time, on all schemes other than those which are completely
internal to the ISP community. So to the ISP's: 'we are a lighthouse - your
call'.
> From: Stephen Sprunk
> I agree that PI is not an actual requirement, but so far it is the only
> model which has been shown to meet the true requirements.
> ...
> I don't see how any renumbering system, unless it was 100% automated,
> could beat PI space on cost.
> ...
> That means a renumbering solution needs to eliminate the need for _all_
> of those things _and_ require no more than 1-2 man-hours of labor per
> year for it to be an economic win.
Exactly...
So, again: as long as we have a supply of PI addresses, and the ISP's will
continue to take them, there's no incentive for the users to do anything at
all.
Noel
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg