Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

At 5:08 AM -1000 5/29/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > (*) Anyone advocating staying with IPv4 and relying
> >     on NAT and market demand as an alternative
> >     needs to consider the completely deaggregated
> >     address usage pattern (and routing table explosion)
> >     that results.
>
> not that i think this a nice approach or anything, but ...
>
> it would seem that the size of the routing table in this case, as in
> others, is proportional to the number of end sites, pi multi-homed if
> that is the dominant policy, or pa aggregated if that is the dominant
> policy.

I respectfully disagree...  you'll see addresses being moved out of
both PA and PI space (particularly PI & legacy) to directly end-sites
and create enormous pressure on the ISPs to allow end-sites with
"self-obtained" /32's to have them injected into the DFZ...  (This is
effectively when the utility value of unique IPv4 addresses reaches
all time high)

Our present routing table issues are nominal compared to the full
brunt of end site non-hierarchical address usage that results.

/John