Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 451823A8339 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, 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 OEfWGrZUrm5O for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com (mail-px0-f189.google.com [209.85.216.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BFE3A6D0F for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pxi27 with SMTP id 27so205748pxi.27 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:23:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qB2ZzzPylx9G6FMLnOtB76Hl+zjC8mdaC5i66K0QyW8=; b=SxSqaB/xGi77ng/91riKvmcreL9M9ytfhiYROLIomwGcpBj6LdAY6MyPVprzxEzxGw ownSrE/ntGl4KeUXm9vXqYGvjGI/g575MpTf+66TxyE2No1ajqQ1hgpCDu6oR2yzJdHH QbKfxwEcUeA/TO20o7gIqe6+aioGiETSCJbX0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=qIEW2XM/OiqhnX7GLjtO4wgavyOy1vmNIIHMHYG659dDCTCZWxhQs0GRrPO98Pk7Rd UuR39K+LPBNCjA0F0mE5Z1JOjTyi7UYe2KxE3O+svA2wDu4CfwPr7IyjklINK352JJzD AQWtOjyn6g80newCTQqVn3KGu9d9Z4fUeFsWk=
Received: by 10.142.9.3 with SMTP id 3mr671wfi.237.1267132938793; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm2514473pzk.14.2010.02.25.13.22.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B86EA09.30907@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:22:17 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <201002180040.o1I0eAr0027055@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4B7C94D5.6040102@joelhalpern.com> <201002242206.o1OM6O4J023229@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4B86E051.7000800@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B86E051.7000800@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:21:02 -0000
On 2010-02-26 09:40, Joel M. Halpern wrote: ... >> Most of this document does not distinguish between IPv4 and >> IPv6. The overall routing archtecture for the two protocols is the >> same. Consequently, most of the issues in this document apply >> equally to IPv4 and IPv6. Any behavior that places pressure on IPv4 >> routing is likely to also exert the same pressure on IPv6. >> Deployment of IPv6 will not lessen these pressures in most cases. >> > > What you propose to add is good. But, the text in 4.6 as written claims > "It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 routing table > would be if wide spread adoption of IPv6 occurred..." Unfortunately, > the extrapolation that then takes place assumes that the same factors > that currently constrain IPv4 sizes would constrain IPvb6 sizes, and > that seems extremely unlikely. Hence, this extrapolation is very > optimistic, and misleading to the reader. Joel, as you know, it isn't the length of the announced prefixes that really matters, but the number of non-aggregated prefixes. So the question is, what constrains the growth in that number? That is of course very debatable, and there is a lot of research literature about it. If current trends persist, for example, you can conclude that a network of 10 billion hosts would generate just over one million BGP4 routes. (That is making a scientifically unjustified extrapolation of the graphs in my CCR paper). But if the rate of multihoming increases by a factor ten, and if multihoming continues to require de-aggregation, we'd get ~10 million routes in BGP. Numbers beyond that imply a much bigger deviation from current practice than seems likely to me, since it's clear that the majority of mobility needs will be met using captive-customer addresses that are intrinsically PA. My conclusion is that we can hope for 1 million routes but should have a solution for 10 million. I don't think there is anything in the data or technology that tells us we will need a solution for 100 million or more. All IMHO of course. Thomas just wrote: > NEW: > > It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 Internet > routing table might look like today, from the current IPv4 Internet > routing table, if widespread IPv6 adoption were to occur > "instantaneously", > > Then, at the end of the paragraph add something like: > > Of course, this estimate is based on a current snapshot of IPv4 > routing activity. Unless the pressures described elsewhere in this > document are reduced, the actual table size would be larger. I don't think that quite covers the very reasonable speculation that the Internet will grow to around ten billion publicly- addressable hosts under IPv6, and that this is part of the problem. So I think we need to be clear that significantly larger numbers are in our future. Brian
- [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Danny McPherson
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Thomas Narten
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Thomas Narten
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Thomas Narten
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Geoff Huston
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05… HeinerHummel
- [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Amund Kvalbein
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tom Vest
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Lixia Zhang
- [rrg] an example of convergence Pekka Savola
- Re: [rrg] an example of convergence Zied BEN HOUIDI
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Constantine Dovrolis
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Danny McPherson
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Geoff Huston
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Geoff Huston
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k … Amund Kvalbein