Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> 
> Can you expand on that a bit?

I think the slides here illustrate some of this pretty well, and even
illustrate how implementation optimizations that result in systemic 
state and churn are a very bad idea - but most operators don't complain
because they have no CLI-esque visibility into just how broken:

<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/grow-6.pdf>
<http://www.tcb.net/rr-thing.pdf>

> Well, in their defense, I can understand people wanting more features from the
> routing. Unfortuntely, IMO that basic architecture is not well-suited to
> adding lots of advanced features (all the easy, low-hanging, ones have
> probably already been picked), but changing to a different one is going to be
> a horrendous undertaking.

Yep, agreed.  

The thing is, network operators are coin-operated, rightly so, and
deploying things like IPv6 before IPv4 is exhausted, or optimizing 
routing designs instead of developing new bottom-line or revenue 
generating features, just doesn't make much sense.  Any incentive 
model outside of 1-3 years to operate or optimize a network service
substrate just doesn't get much attention.

-danny