I've been mulling this over for days, and have concluded that
my only option is to abstain.
> STATEMENTS & BALLOT:
>
> A) "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
> whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the
> DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable."
>
> [ ] YES
> [ ] NO
I regard it as quite plausible that if we do nothing (modulo
deploying IPv6) the BGP4 table size will eventually stabilise at
about 1 million entries, and it's very plausible that this will
not be a technological problem.
>
> B) "There is no reason to believe that a scalable solution for
> site multi-homing will appear in the future so long as the
> Internet proceeds with current architectural approach to
> site multi-homing."
>
> [ ] YES
> [ ] NO
I can't say No to that, but I can't say Yes either, because
there is no issue unless the demand for multihoming expands
*disproportionately* to the general growth of the network. I
have no reason to believe that it will expand disproportionately.
Neither of these abstentions means that we shouldn't look for
a scalable solution, of course.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
