Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

I may be missing something, but it seems like the driver for such 
disaggregation in v4 would be more obvious with some of the 
map-and-encaps than with the current architecture.

Once things are worth money, residential and SOHO folks be NATed.  I 
don't like it, but that simply seems to be inevitable.  Hence they will 
not be contributing disaggregated prefixes into teh pool.

In fact, as far as I can tell, anyone who is NATed can happily be 
aggregated (because the NAT will take care of renumbering / isolation 
issues for the customer.)

Folks who need to host a small number of servers might be able to get by 
with a very long prefix, but no one else could.  They either need more 
addresses, or none.
Again, if we assume economics is kicking in, it would seem that using 
hosting providers, who get benefits of scale, would be more cost 
effective than trying to host servers using very long prefixes, for 
which you pay money.

No, I can not prove any of that analysis.
And all other things being equal, I would prefer a solution taht 
addresses IPv4.
What I don't want to do is rule out good architectural solutions because 
they only address IPv6.

(One path would be to figure out what we think the right answer looks 
like.  Then figure out if it applies to IPv4.  AIf not, we can figure 
out what reasonable paths we ought to explore in case Chris is right and 
the v4 economics actually drive an explosion in disaggregated prefixes.)

Yours,
Joel

Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Joel, in (msg05925), you wrote:
>>>> The IPv4 Internet works. The routers, and the routing system, cope
>>>> with the current pressures. To my way of looking at things, the
>>>> question is how will the Internet routing system cope with growth.
>>>> But, definitionally, there really is not that much growth left in
>>>> IPv4.
>> As an operator, I would agree with this, but I fear it only to be
>> true until prefixes start having substantial resale value.  At that
>> point, slicing and dicing would really begin once the money starts
>> flowing.
> 
> I think it's not just 'for sale' but 'gosh /24 really isn't the limit
> is it? lets start accepting and passing on /25../26../27...etc' Sure
> it's not going to get to Avagadro's number of prefixes in v4, but 3B
> is still way more than 2M (which is about where current vendors stop
> hedging today).
> 
> In the end, ipv4 can get larger than current platforms can handle,
> quickly, and future planned platforms as well. It seems that the same
> problem exists regardless of protocol#.
> 
>> The RIR's appear to me to be gearing up for this to some degree.
> 
> yes.
> -chris
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
> 