nanog mailing list archives

Re: classful routes redux


From: Russ White <riw () cisco com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:07:13 -0500


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


A routing table capable of handling a flat 2^128 addressing space goes
beyond the realm of known physics -- and flat 2^64 comes close, at least for
a while (consider semiconductor atomic weights, and the fact that 1 mole is
approximately 2^79 atoms).  That's quite a stretch, but should give a hint
as to why flat addressing does not work for every model.

Come on now, a lot of new routing gear made today can just barely handle 
2^18 routes, and even the high end stuff tops out at 2^20. We're nowhere 
near handling 2^32 routes even for IPv4, nor should we be, so lets not 
start the whole "but ipv6 has more space therefore routes will increase to 
7873289439872361837492837493874982347932847329874293874" nonsense again.

Removing the extreme restrictions on IP space allocation by being able to 
allocate chunks so large that you would RARELY need to go back for a 
second block would immediate reduce the size of the routing table. Let me 
state the stats again for the record:

Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:                 20761
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:           18044
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:                            8555
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:                2717

There are just not that many distinct BGP speaking networks out there, nor
will there ever be. NOW is the time to make certain that IPv6 deployments
makes sense in practice and not just in theory, so we don't work ourselves
into exactly the same mess that we did in IPv4. Lets stop trying to solve
theoretical scaling problems which will never happen at the expense of
creating problems which actually DO exist, and apply a little bit of common
sense.

whilst i'm at the mic here, ditch the idea of microassignments, just give out a 
standard /32 block ... lets not start out with ge 33 prefixes in the table when 
theres no need

Hmmm.... Some interesting points:

- -- 2^32 is still larger than 2^20, which is claimed to be the largest 
feasible size, above.

- -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd, 
if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever 
grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that we now 
need more than 64,000?

Just curious.

:-)

Russ

- -- 
riw () cisco com CCIE <>< Grace Alone


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424)

iQA/AwUBQ2trGREdu7FIVPTkEQI5RQCg+Ol1jrkvldeC5ao403Yw4WiiabgAnj1K
KXBXTIBh9R7kDIDBWGooPxdQ
=i+AJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Current thread: