Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

Owen DeLong wrote:

> Consider, for example AS7922

COMCAST is not a good example.

> but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time.

No, if you know theory and practice of how additional address ranges
are allocated as a result of growth, you could have noticed that the
large number of prefixes of COMCAST should mostly be a result of
mergers, where merged parts won't renumber their hosts.

> That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in
> IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.

Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.

> Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the
> IPv4 routing table size.

The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion.

        http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html
        What is driving this recent change to exponential growth
        of the routing table?
        In a word, multi-homing.

> > With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M 
> > with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
>
> I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for
> IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites
> in IPv6?

I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.

> > The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending.
>
> People have been claiming that Moore's law is at an end longer than
> we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment.

I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology
trend.

                                                Masataka Ohta