On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> one of these curves is steeper than the other. > > That's what we wanted for the first one. > >> >> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step >> > >> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step >> >> If the slope on the second stays within some reasonable bounds of it's >> current trajactory then everything's cool, you buy new routers on >> schedule and the world moves on. The first one however will eventually >> kill us. > > It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly around 120k > prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as v4 did. > I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational planning, few organizations should need to add more prefixes annually, the way they had to in IPv4 due to scarcity based allocation policies.
Owen
