Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Mon, 15 March 2010 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
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 10D1E3A68D9 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.315
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.279, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z=0.259]
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 pXNDmX-S9Ycg for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55123A68D8 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7ED817572B; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:00:18 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B9DBEE2.50902@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:00:18 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
References: <201002180040.o1I0eAr0027055@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4B837DB1.8050009@firstpr.com.au> <201002242234.o1OMYlJV031162@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CD964388-4B88-4B58-82D5-88A7A11A5095@apnic.net> <4B8FB78D.7060903@firstpr.com.au> <4B9B068A.3030004@firstpr.com.au> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003141730020.4735@stoner.jakma.org> <4B9DA680.3000503@firstpr.com.au> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003150413530.4735@stoner.jakma.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003150413530.4735@stoner.jakma.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg
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: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:00:15 -0000

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

>> You have asserted there is no routing scaling problem,
>
> Did I?
>
>> Could you go perhaps go back to my message where I said how I
>> wished to vote. I think you'll find you've misunderstood me.

I have not mentioned anything about voting - there is no voting in
the RRG, and I understand no attempt will be made to seek or reach
consensus on the final recommendation. (msg06220)

I thought that you were arguing against the existence of the routing
scaling problem, because in your first message in this thread, you wrote:

  > However, it does not seem justified to say the current routing
  > architecture has a scaling problem.

Since I have difficulty understanding what you describe as your
"scribblings" in a manner you agree with, I will not pursue this
discussion further except to note that:

  1 - I was not complaining about "TTBOMLK".

  2 - I disagree with your "Let the data do the arguing." - people
      can argue, data can't.

  3 - Our arguments must concern our reasonable fears about the
      future, since we have no data about the future.

  - Robin