On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Justin Krejci <jkrejci@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 aggregates, and announce them, and an unfiltered DFZ may well approach the 'million' entries some vendors now claim to support.
This matches my personal view (and could be viewed as "success" compared to the 5M estimate of Mr. Herrin...)
Are people going to be relying on using default-routing then in the future if they don't upgrade routers to handle large routing table growth? Or perhaps forgo dual-stack and have a separate physical IPv6 BGP network from IPv4? Are there any other strategies?
Hi Justin,
IMHO, the most sensible strategy is to recognize that that cost of a route has been dropping faster than the route count has been rising for the past decade. Then recognize that with today's hardware, building a route processor capable of keeping up with 10M routes instead of 1M routes would cost maybe twice as much... 10M being sufficient to handle the worst case estimates for the final size of the IPv4 table in parallel with any reasonable estimate of the IPv6 table in the foreseeable future. Better CPU, more DRAM, bigger TCAM. It could be built today.
But the RP is the easy cheap part. It's the line cards and the TCAM/etc. that they use that gets pricey fast.
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 cards instead of $30,000 or even $25,000 instead of $12,000 does not seem like one that most would have found appealing.
But that's just my opinion...
And the above is just mine. Owen