On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Justin Krejci <jkre...@usinternet.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:32 -0500, John Curran wrote: >>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: >>>> I suspect that as we reach exhaustion, more people will be >>>> forced to break space out of their provider's v4 aggregates, and >>>> announce them, and an unfiltered DFZ may well approach the 'million' >>>> entries some vendors now claim to support. >>> >>> This matches my personal view (and could be viewed as >>> "success" compared to the 5M estimate of Mr. Herrin...) >> >> Are people going to be relying on using default-routing then in the >> future if they don't upgrade routers to handle large routing table >> growth? Or perhaps forgo dual-stack and have a separate physical IPv6 >> BGP network from IPv4? Are there any other strategies? > > > Hi Justin, > > IMHO, the most sensible strategy is to recognize that that cost of a > route has been dropping faster than the route count has been rising > for the past decade. Then recognize that with today's hardware, > building a route processor capable of keeping up with 10M routes > instead of 1M routes would cost maybe twice as much... 10M being > sufficient to handle the worst case estimates for the final size of > the IPv4 table in parallel with any reasonable estimate of the IPv6 > table in the foreseeable future. Better CPU, more DRAM, bigger TCAM. > It could be built today. > But the RP is the easy cheap part. It's the line cards and the TCAM/etc. that they use that gets pricey fast.
> Finally, get mad at your respective router manufacturers for > engineering obsolescence into their product line by declining to give > you the option. > The option of $60,000 line cards instead of $30,000 or even $25,000 instead of $12,000 does not seem like one that most would have found appealing. > But that's just my opinion... > And the above is just mine. Owen