North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
On Sep 11, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet, somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the former.On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
In fact, I would think it's the same for v4. Do you disagree? And if so, why?
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS) will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technology.Right, 'cause we all know tomorrow's problems need to be solved with today's technology. But let's try it anyway.
As per RAS' post, reducing the growth of the table to equal the growth of ASNs would be a huge win. A problem which is, in fact, solvable with "today's technology". So, despite your completely silly and unreasonable constraints (kinda like "each home in the world being multihomed"), the problem is still solvable.
Keeping small providers, hosters, enterprises, schools, etc., who do not want to be tied to a single provider from multihoming is a huge loss.
I guess you could argue forcing people to single-home is not a bad thing. As one of the people who pay for transit, I tell you it is not. Period. And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough.