Randy Bush wrote:
Actually, your memory is incomplete. Wasn't it Deering who did the
analysis that it would actually _decrease_ the _global_ table to mere
hundreds, but increase the internal routing tables of large carriers?
the analysis was suspect (you should have seen the sentence i
deleted and replaced with this:-)
Hmmm, I'll look for my old files (1993 was quite awhile ago in machine
years) to see whether I still have that stuff.
If I can find it, we should probably correspond privately about any
errors in the analysis -- and how an analysis might be done today.
And given the perspective of another decade of history, I'd argue that
without the incentive to join IXs, we still have the problem that most
"ISPs that matter" aren't connected to _any_ IX. (Noted as well by
Paul Vixie in an earlier message.)
this is not what vixie said at all, luckily for him, because it is
incorrect
OK, on this I'll bite, as it's operational.
On 07 Oct 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
# IX's are not, alas, the center of the internet, no matter what anybody's
# marketing might say. the vast majority of traffic exchange is by private
# interconnect, which might be an IX crossconnect, but might just as likely
# be some kind of ISO-L1 or ISO-L2 link through a metro or telco or whatever.
Are you agreeing with Bill Woodcock, who wrote "ISPs which matter
are at more than one IX"?
Perhaps you are quibbling that the "ISPs that matter" are not the
"vast majority of traffic"?
Or do you have some other insight on how to do massive moves quickly,
without renumbering and without damaging the routing tables?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
