March 1997 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: The Big Squeeze
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 10:23 PM 3/2/97 -0600, Sean Donelan wrote: > >Is the route computation of a /8 prefix flapping once a second any >different than a /24 flapping once a second? If /8's are "naturally" >more stable, then why allow them to flap more before dampening them? > How many /8's are in the global routing system v. /24's? - paul

1 0

Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 03:48 PM 3/2/97 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >I'd like to point out that flap dampening is a band-aid; the real solutions >are in eliminating sources of flap, rather than easying symptoms. > Vadim, I'd love to hear your suggestions on this one. ;-) - paul

1 0

Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 02:37 PM 3/2/97 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >Not the case with one vendor's boxes. Memory _was_ the issue >after introducing CIDR. AGS/+s and early 7000s were running out >of memory, not out of CPU cycles. > Witness the birth of boxes which have 32Mb, 64Mb, 128Mb, etc., memory. >--vadim > >This message is brought to you by the society for history preservation :) > Yes, I know. I was there. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 01:25 PM 3/2/97, Joseph T. Klein wrote: >We are re-designing the Internet to make up for the fact the >largest manufacturers of routers has been slow to develop and >deploy systems that can keep up with the growth curve. A lot of >this comes down to size of the memory bus on low cost systems. > Without launching into a long, tiresome response here, I would suggest that this is correct, yet incorrect. The statistics that I have seen indicates that we (collectively) are not behind the curve here. Of course, there are extraneous issues which do not relate to the router vendors (availability of fiber, etc.), but let's not go down that rat hole. > >If router manufacturers worked on hardware and all used an open >software standard ... such as gated ... we would all be better off. >Open standards allow all of us to benefit from the work of others. I like open standards just as much as the next guy, but let's be realistic here. There is a difference between 'open standards' with regards to getting bits from point a to point b (the protocols developed within the IETF and elsewhere) and operating systems. I would suggest that the former is much more important than the latter. - paul

1 0

Re: The Big Squeeze
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 04:03 PM 3/2/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: > >I'll assert that if the costs of accepting a route announcement are >non-zero that this can only happen if there is a market for >announcements and a system of settlements between providers. > >If the costs are zero, then why have the filters? > I'd suggest that costs are non-zero, and they cannot be quantified by dollars, at least today. Since the majority of instability in the global Internet is originated by prefixes longer than /19's, the amount of resources consumed is an exercise left for the reader. - paul

1 0

Re: The real problem
by Paul Ferguson 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 04:03 PM 3/2/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: >Mike, > >If I follow your observation, routing computation growth is >non-linearly related to number of routes. Or is it >orthogonal? If the growth is related to the announcement, >this infers that costs incurred for the announcement of routes by >ISP FOO to ISP BAR would be non-linear with the quantity, >correct? > I would suggest that the number of prefixes in the global routing table *is* linearly related to the amount of computational overhead. - paul

1 0

Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
by Vadim Antonov 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

>however, to the degree this has caused people to conclude that the real >problem is "just" memory it is a red herring and a grave disservice. this >topic has caused more witch-hunting and suspension of reason by otherwise >smart people than anything in recent memory. Yes, the level of confusion (pun intended) surrounding these issues is very high. BTW, i agree with your conclusion (that scarcity of cycles is the issue) completely. I'd like to point out that flap dampening is a band-aid; the real solutions are in eliminating sources of flap, rather than easying symptoms. --vadim

2 1

RE: The Big Squeeze
by Jim Fleming 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 02, 1997 6:44 PM, Michael Shields[SMTP:shields@crosslink.net] wrote: @ > 1. set a fee schedule for routing slots and determine what the conditions @ > of sale will be so that every Tom, Dick and Jane doesn't try to @ > buy a /24 slot for their PowerMAC webserver with ISDN TA attached. @ @ Is there really a problem with that, as long as Tom, Dick, and Jane @ are willing to pay the $x-thousand annual cost of the routing slot for @ their /24? (Or /28?) @ -- @ Shields, CrossLink. @ @ What if that slot costs the same as the slot for a /18 ? I bet some would renumber and some would not.... Let's let the market decide... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: The Big Squeeze
by Jim Fleming 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 02, 1997 1:03 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@internic.net] wrote: <snip> @ Actually, the ARIN mailing list is not the place to discuss this, the @ PAGAN list is. I do agree that something needs to be done to begin @ recapturing unused space, especially from those organizations no longer @ in business. This issue was raised in the IRE/PAGAN BOF at the last @ IETF and needs to continue being seriously discussed. @ I will remind the NANOG readers that I suggested "neighbor net"[1]... ...there is no time like tomorrow... [1] Neighbor net is a simple concept where adjacent binary space neighbors check above and below and file periodic reports or essentially knock on the virtual door and say..."anyone home?" -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

The Big Squeeze
by Scott Huddle 03 Mar '97

03 Mar '97

At 07:31 PM 2/26/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with >prefix filtering at the /19 level. > >The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators >of space refuse to give ISPs /19s. These two goals seem to be at odds in the current system for address allocation. How would you change the system to allow people to aquire address space that they need and get it routed? The address allocation scheme is geared towards trying to promote utilization of IP space, thus the sorta "take just what you need" methodology. The filters that you talk of seem to me to be crude proxies for controlling routing space on a particular providers network, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing (i.e. they have to make their network work). If different providers were to sell routing "slots" on their network such that an ISP could guarantee that their announcements would be accepted (regardless of address length) this would seem to solve the problems of both those that can't "justify" a big block and those of the providers that want to control the use of their resources on their network as well. It appears that you're primary argument is one of fairness and level playing field for all comers regardless of size, and I think this is a worthy goal if it can be done technically. -scott

8 9