North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:31:56 +0100 (CET), "Mikael Abrahamsson" <email@example.com> said: [snip] > The current routing model doesn't scale. I don't want to sit 5 years from > now needing a router that'll handle 8 million routes to get me through > the > next 5 years of route growth. agree! > > PI space for multihoming and AS number growth is a bad thing for scaling > and economics, however you look at it. agree! > > Shim6 would hopefully curb the prefix growth very early in the growth > curve as single entities won't need AS to multihome between two different > ISPs. agree! [snip] All is well if shim6 succeeds it seems ... 5-10 years into the future. Do we all agree to postpone v6 till then? If not there's a need for an intermediary solution. To me it seems like people want 2 things: 1. A working solution. The only alternative with current technology is PI end-site assignments. 2. Reasonable predictability. To make ever-lasting technologies and policies may be the dream in some research communities. The rest of us have to work with what we got and accept that we have to upgrade and make substatial changes to our networks from time to time. An alternative to satisfy those who fear the long term effect of a growing routing-table could be temporary end-site assignments from dedicated address-blocks. At some point in the future, when new-and-mature technology exist, the RIR-community could decide on new policies and decide to re-claim the entire block on e.g. a 24-month notice. ... just my $.02 compromise ;) //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/