[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net) wrote:
Are you saying that de-aggrgegation (individual PI or more specifics
of one of the upstream's PA) will continue to be the only multi-homing
solution for those who need advanced TE capabilities?
I don't want to speak for Joe, so please note this is me speaking.
"Only multi-homing solution"? It isn't today, so why should it be
the only solution in the future?
Are you suggesting that the size of the IPv4 and IPv6 routing
system that
results from "traditional IPv4 style" multi-homing will not be a
problem
that needs to be solved by some other multi-homing solution that
does not
use de-aggregation?
Yes. The difficulties in v4 routing are not insurmountable.
I'm not sure why you are asking this, as many people have told you
this (including me, in person) multiple times. And explained why we
think that way. You can disagree, but please stop acting surprised
when we say the same thing over again.
Are you suggesting that hardware is or will be sufficently large to
be at
least seven years ahead of the route table growth, and still remain
affordable?
Seven years? You've thrown that number around before, but I still do
not see the justification for it.
Sorry if this has been said before, but I find it interesting that
seven years ago people were saying the same thing about v4. It's
been seven years, and we seem to be doing OK. In fact, the current
routing hardware has a lot more headroom than it did back in 98/99.
I guess you could claim that OC768 interfaces costing $1M each is not
"affordable", but I think the difficulty of switching a laser on &
off 40 billion times per second on top of any significant routing
decisions might have something to do with the cost. Or are you
saying that the cost would be an order of magnitude less if the
router only had to deal with 30K routes instead of 180K?
There are things wrong with the global table. Allowing people who
need more than one transit provider to use standard IPv4 multi-homing
techniques is not one of them.
--
TTFN,
patrick