Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 05:04, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has
> > few (if any) mergers involved:
>
> I don't think so.

Care to expand on this?
> > AS6939 — 125 prefixes...
>
> Are you spamming?

No... HE has not acquired a significant number of other businesses to the best of my knowledge. 

> > Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with:
> > 2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48
>
> If you are saying some merger happened before v6 transition,
> which explains why there are less v6 prefix than v4, I can agree
> with you.
>
> But, so what?

To the best of my knowledge, HE transitioned to v6 very early in their history, so I tend to doubt it. 

> > > Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
> > Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270
> > prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4
> > prefixes = 1250 prefixes.
>
> The number of prefixes by swamp is recognized to be not a problem
> even when we were discussing it in 1998 when there was only less
> than 50000 prefixes.
>
> > > > Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than
> > > > the IPv4 routing table size.
>
> > Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let's look at what
> > is driving that increase in "multihoming"…
>
> OK. You admit that the problem is caused by multihoming. OK.

No, I admit multihoming is one of several factors. 

> > > I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
> > You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you
> > want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24
> > in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually
> > advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give
> > you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.
>
> I don't think I need such chance as my argument is already good enough.

We can agree to disagree about this as is usually the case. 

> > While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending
> > tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in
> > a period where Moore's law is leveling off.
>
> I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology
> trend.

Repeating your condescending statement doesn’t make it any more accurate the second time. 

Owen