Hi, Out of curiosity was the reasoning also to charge the PA who are deagregating?
To restate there are 113,220 extra routes smaller than RIR minimums out of the /24:126,450 in the table. The today reality seems to be that 113K of that 126K is probably being caused by existing networks de-aggregating PA. While I would I would agree that corporate multihoming with PI has a huge potential problem on the table in terms of number of prefixes. Further more as BGP skills are becoming more common place and Linux/Quagga skills the barrier to entry for a corporate is reducing at the same time their commercial reliance on and use of the Internet is increasing. Corporate multihoming - if permitted - has the inevitable consequence of an extra prefix. PA deagreagtion - has the avoidable consequence of lots of extra prefixes. I know who I would be charging first and maybe it would give the much need incentive for them to clean house. We could then have some number up to 113K new multihomed corporate before we got back to where we are today in terms of route table size. An interesting question to gauge the size of the corporate multihoming potential problem is to guess how many there may be worldwide that would bother / try - I have no idea. I believe (possibly wrongly) that IPv6 doesn't really have a solution for multihoming corporate with multiple allocations and weird shims and NAT configurations to get it to work - or have the RIRs decided on a policy change yet and issuing PI blocks of IPv6 as well? Am I correct on my interpretation of the numbers for PA:PI smaller prefix origins? Kind Regards Ben -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: 20 January 2008 11:06 To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough > > numbers suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 > > prefix in the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE) was then in the > > neighborhood of $8000 USD per year. > > I haven't seen that work, but I am guessing this number is an > aggregate (i.e. every cost to everyone on the 'Net combined), not per- > network? See, I'm just looking at that TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR > number and thinking to myself, "um, yeah, right". :) Patrick, That was a worldwide total, yes. The cost per prefix per router is obviously only measured in cents per year. You do know that Cisco's sales are north of $20B per year, right? Juniper, which sells few products that aren't DFZ routers, also posts annual revenues well north of $1B. > Feel free to explain how confused I am. (But be warned, I am not > going to believe it costs $2B/year to run a multi-homed network with > two full feeds. :) The thread started here: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008927.html It was originally an argument of about the cost of doing PI for IPv6, which according to Cisco product literature consumes twice the amount of space in the FIB as routes for IPv4. I encourage you to critique the numbers and then add them up for yourself. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
