Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 26 January 2010 19:32 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 909B23A68DE for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6]
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 lhpreE5A6rTC for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A143C3A6894 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so169161fge.1 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:25 -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=YIHahkBdkIGno9gxeBONj5CC0Xm079mtYN5Ja5ezly8=; b=iAy4QTHaasGeVT2V7npvs7/FEEUlcqYfON58RCYMd9+jrrSaxOF/E/grQLS9C3JDhx M2Ts7v3ZqwSz99vGat/m1/Qx7RQXulhhHgibQBpFE8A5zFE0Bs7VTFAK96zaKab//A6n y3tsHFm+1dfSMyF46l4xnjGJVVbFuL+D2+sTI=
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=ehoOoRwqgCocFHufXp4rM+Duk3AfCWMDmDPAqEqRtO5551i9PM70b9STZoU8rph7CI /JIWUmxgc/qz57WzYa2HwcqFPpB/dQnTVwe6ilEbQkg6v5D2IJrvEUynoqs9hxN2AEP5 QT3PQ7Mwrn/IaEfsyVN6ObUsAmxl6xsKtgMVI=
Received: by 10.87.46.12 with SMTP id y12mr4449072fgj.47.1264534344927; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e11sm13581323fga.9.2010.01.26.11.32.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B5F433A.4000300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:32:10 +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: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
References: <20100126043417.42F116BE5D6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <16FF2E4C-D1E3-4B04-8418-EC0BCED7BFCF@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <16FF2E4C-D1E3-4B04-8418-EC0BCED7BFCF@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:32:17 -0000

On 2010-01-26 17:48, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 
>> Are you really propose dumping 10 million PI entries into the DFZ?
> 
> Yes; anyone who proposes general PI addressing is talking about that.

Firstly, I'd like to support the ten million estimate. Based on the
projected world population of just under ten billion by 2050, that
amounts to one enterprise per thousand humans, and that seems to be
roughly what you find in the available data for developed economies
(ignoring dummy companies and sole practioners). So if you believe
that SOHO customers, including mobile phones, do not need PI prefixes,
10 million PI prefixes is about right.

We had this discussion two years ago, iirc. The real disagreement was
not about this estimate, but about whether we need to solve the problem
only for those 10 million PI EID prefixes, or for a much larger number
of SOHO+mobile EID prefixes.

    Brian