nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:07:17 -0400 (EDT)
[Update to earlier stats: The current v4 prefix/AS ratio is 8.7.However, there are ~11k ASes only announcing a single v4 route, so that means the other ~14k ASes are at a v4 ratio of 14.3. In contrast, the current v6 ratio is 1.1 and the deaggregate rate is 1.2%.]
This is more than a little frightening :(
The simplistic answer is that nearly all assigned/allocated blocks will be minimum-sized, which means ISPs will be capable of filtering deaggregates if they wish. Some folks have proposed allowing a few extra bits for routes with short AS_PATHs to allow TE to extend a few ASes away without impacting the entire community.This is an excellent solution- is there some reason people wouldn't want to implement it? It would seem to lead directly to a more heirarchical table.
justification for larger-than-minimum blocks. OTOH, the community may see how small the v6 table is and decide that N bits of deaggregation wouldn't hurt. After all, with ~25k ASes today, and router vendors claiming to be able to handle 1M+ routes, it seems we could tolerate up to 5 bits of deaggregation -- and 3 bits would leave us with a table smaller than v4 has today.Combine this with the above system. Allow 2 bits of deagg anywhere but up to 4 bits for a short as_path for networks in the /48 range. Allow 3 bits for networks in the /32 range and up to 5 bits for a short as_path. (or whatever other numbers make sense).
Either way we seem to be looking at a much smaller table as long as we decide on some sensible rules and actually stick to them. That is going to be the biggest problem though.
-Don
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (Jun 01)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (Jun 01)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (Jun 01)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Kradorex Xeron (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Joel Jaeggli (Jun 01)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Petri Helenius (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Stephen Sprunk (Jun 01)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (Jun 02)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Paul Vixie (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Simon Leinen (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Chris Owen (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Stephen Satchell (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jun 04)