On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
That must be my mistake then, because I thought the exercise was
building it in a way that it stays built for the maximum practical
number of years.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
there's probably a different need in TOR and BO/SOHO locations than
core devices, eh?
In today's backbone, this is certainly true. Feature-driven upgrades
shouldn't be much of a factor for P boxes today, because
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
there's probably a different need in TOR and BO/SOHO locations than
core devices, eh?
In today's backbone, this is certainly true.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
not everyone drinks the mpls koolaide... so it's not always 'just a
label switch' and depending upon how large your PE mesh is, there are
If it isn't just a label switch, then features can (and sometimes do)
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
not need that info, but the edge likely does, yes? Have 100g customers
today? planning on having them in the next ~8/12/18 months?
If
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
I'm super-tired of the but tcams are an expensive
non-commodity part not subject to economies of scale. this
has been repeated ad nauseam since the raws workshop if not before.
You don't have to build a lookup engine around a
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 08:00 -0500, William Herrin wrote:
You're either building a bunch of big TCAMs or a radix trie engine
with sufficient parallelism to get the same aggregate lookup rate. If
there's a materially different 3rd way to build a FIB, one that works
at least as well, feel free
On 3/12/11 5:00 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
I'm super-tired of the but tcams are an expensive
non-commodity part not subject to economies of scale. this
has been repeated ad nauseam since the raws workshop if not before.
You
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 3/12/11 5:00 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I'll be
convinced it can be done for less than 2x cost when someone actually
does it for less than 2x cost.
part of the exercise is neither building nor buying the capacity before
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
That must be my mistake then, because I thought the exercise was
building it in a way that it stays built for the maximum practical
number of years. When it has to be touched again (or tweaked if it
So when you upgrade a
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
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
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
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
I'm super-tired of the but tcams are an expensive non-commodity part not
subject to economies of scale. this has been repeated ad nauseam since the
raws workshop if not before.
You don't have to build a lookup engine around a tcam and in fact you can use
less power doing so even though you
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
nat64.
that teenie bit better be part of a larger aggregate that can reach at
least one of
On 3/9/11 12:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
nat64.
that teenie bit better be part of a larger
one of these curves is steeper than the other.
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxtdescr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29with=step
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
one of these curves is steeper than the other.
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxtdescr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29with=step
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.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
dual-stack backbones will announce teenie
On 3/9/11 1:55 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
one of these curves is steeper than the other.
the last serious satainc phylters died in 2001. salesmarketing
pressure. when eyecandy.com is behind a /27, or your sm folk
sell to weenie.foo who wants you to announce their /26, it will be
the end of the /24 barrier.
Sure, you can sell to someone who wants to announce a /26 and you can
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.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
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://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enas_sdt=0,5cluster=6058676534328717115
@article{cittadini2010evolution,
title={{Evolution of Internet Address Space Deaggregation: Myths and
Reality}},
author={Cittadini, L. and Muhlbauer, W. and Uhlig, S. and Bush, R. and
Fran{\c{c}}ois, P.
The implication of this statement would seem to be that the reason the
routing tables are growing is due primarily to allocations and not
deaggregation (e.g., for traffic engineering). Does anyone have any
actual data to corroborate or refute this?
Luca Cittadini, Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Steve
Hi.
We had an interesting discussion the other day at work. We were
speculating on how many DFZ IPv4 routes there would be at peak in the
future before it starts to decline again due to less IPv4 usage. The
current number is around 350k, and my personal estimation is that it would
grow by
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can nat64.
randy
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
We had an interesting discussion the other day at work. We were speculating
on how many DFZ IPv4 routes there would be at peak in the future before it
starts to decline again due to less IPv4 usage.
My guess therefore
On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
My guess therefore is a peak around 450-500k IPv4 DFZ routes and that this
would happen in around 3-5 years. I wanted to record this for posterity.
What is your guess, any why?
I think it'll end up around the same range, mostly due to
You have ignored the probability of disaggregation due to IP trading markets,
especially
given the wild-west nature of the APNIC transfer policy.
Many of the legacy blocks will get dramatically disaggregated in the likely
market which
could take the DFZ well beyond 500k routes.
It will be very
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You have ignored the probability of disaggregation due to IP trading markets,
especially
given the wild-west nature of the APNIC transfer policy.
Many of the legacy blocks will get dramatically disaggregated in the likely
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can nat64.
I'll take this
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
last allocations being seen in the remaining RIR normal allocations
would be smaller than before plus de-aggregation of space as people
sell or lease subspace of their allocations.
You have
btw, this discussion should not forget that the load on routers is churn
and number of paths, not just prefix count.
randy
From: Randy Bush
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 7:44 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the
future
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
destinations out there that multi-homed
36 matches
Mail list logo
