On 2008-10-28 04:33, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Robin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't support the scaling problem being solved just for "small" networks,
>> however defined,
>
> Agree.
>
>> differently for "small" and "large" networks.
>
> Disagree. There's a money issue here: large networks can afford and
> are willing to spend more money on multihoming than small networks.
> There's no reason that both should be constrained to the same solution
> at the same cost. The requirement is that whatever the scaling
> solution, the per-network cost must either be trivial -or- recoverable
> from the networks who instigate it.
I agree with Bill, and it seems to me that there's a fundamental
difference between Eliot's o(10^6) big sites and the much greater
number of small sites. The big ones are very likely to have a DMZ,
run their own servers, and have multiple points of interconnection
around the world. In other words, prime candidates for PI based
addressing and maybe a map/encap style solution.
The small ones are very likely to have a simple firewall/router
combo, outsource their publicly accessible servers, and have a single
point of attachment (or at least, several attachments in a relatively
small geographical area). They are also, I believe, much less likely
to be significantly disturbed by renumbering than the large sites.
I think there's definitely scope for two solutions.
Brian
>
> BGP is unacceptable because it costs "the world" about $8000/yr for
> every announced BGP prefix. If there was a way that "the world" could
> recover that $8000 from each of the folks announcing a prefix, our
> problem space would shrink considerably.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
