Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 05 February 2010 03:17 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6636C3A6E3C for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RmtK0OGm-r6e for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com (mail-iw0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796003A6858 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn4 with SMTP id 4so3645107iwn.27 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:18:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q1I0qVcFgp3jKzs3ed7xdhpiNK2rUJ2iVtyW9yUf1Sc=; b=KUp0lpN0mNnnNVfoLmcs2lunc/sqj4BKfnsDh02QVY5OeI+3spPYRIm7nGbc3bgb6r AS+3SB48QTN1dIJzRnrfh3a19YHNA4qs+tJ49hh/pBGr4iSATkUtC/UbeSILQsur0Qhj 3TmnZz5Mofzw0lcYGtRXkFnwRPFLLW2CUOu5Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=aM+UIfUXOizLisFzqFnIj+zUC4rx+jgzQ7++VtXJM76MO74qinYE6RSnIpqIS76u6Y a0XbU2qp8qhmISSl3kiYKhXH1gpEXf+RnuUIq7JDhi/tuNVI2I024ASfaxi6v244GkXL G6rHepQ9V8aRpIl8sD3U3QsV+O7JbEY6nTU2M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.149.9 with SMTP id r9mr1593479ibv.74.1265339915899; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:18:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <48225D32-CD3B-4AE0-BFC6-5535B12BF519@wisc.edu>
References: <32101_1265251077_ZZg0Q4CoNw0Le.00_4B6A32F8.4080800@firstpr.com.au> <48225D32-CD3B-4AE0-BFC6-5535B12BF519@wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:18:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d3efc44ae55992f1
Message-ID: <75cb24521002041918l4820395dh9524b280a2b00d32@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, RRG <rrg@irtf.org>, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:17:51 -0000

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