North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Patrick W. Gilmore
- Date: Sun Sep 11 13:09:05 2005
On Sep 11, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet,
somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the former.
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
We disagree. And your hyperbole doesn't come close to proving
Well then, why don't you do the following:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
In fact, I would think it's the same for v4. Do you disagree? And
if so, why?
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per
AS) will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's
Right, 'cause we all know tomorrow's problems need to be solved with
today's technology. But let's try it anyway.
As per RAS' post, reducing the growth of the table to equal the
growth of ASNs would be a huge win. A problem which is, in fact,
solvable with "today's technology". So, despite your completely
silly and unreasonable constraints (kinda like "each home in the
world being multihomed"), the problem is still solvable.
Keeping small providers, hosters, enterprises, schools, etc., who do
not want to be tied to a single provider from multihoming is a huge
I guess you could argue forcing people to single-home is not a bad
thing. As one of the people who pay for transit, I tell you it is
not. Period. And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough.