nanog mailing list archives

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)


From: Mark Newton <newton () internode com au>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 01:50:49 +1030


On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how  
to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes...  I'm not sure we'll be there for a  
few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs  
to figure out what the Internet is going to look like at that point.

It won't look good. ISPs will have to buy much more expensive  
routers. At some point, people will start to filter out routes that  
they feel they can live without and universal reachability will be a  
thing of the past.

But don't we filter out routes we feel we can live without *right now*
without the world ending?

I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to 
universal reachability.

What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than 
a /18"?

  - mark

-- 
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton () internode com au (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton () atdot dotat org  (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd                 Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223


Current thread: