North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:05:17AM -0800, David Barak wrote: > > > > --- Joe Abley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, the whole reason for these > > > discussions is the insistence on the strict > > > PA-addressing model, with no ability to advertise > > PA > > > space to other providers. > > > > The whole reason for the strict PA-addressing model > > is concern over > > whether open-slather on PI address space will result > > in an Internet > > that will scale. > > Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N > hosts? If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN > gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s. It > would be a really long time before we had as many > routes in the table as we do today, let alone the > umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so > badly. I think you're missing that some people do odd things with their IPs as well, like have one ASN and 35 different sites where they connect to their upstream Tier69.net all with the same ASN. This means that their 35 offices/sites will each need a /32, not one per the entire asn in the table. And they may use different carriers in different cities. Obviously this doesn't fit the definition that some have of "autonomous system", as these are 35 different discrete networks that share a globally unique identifier of sorts. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from email@example.com clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.