Agreed - At this point, even an extra 50K routes would be well within the limits of almost every provider's BGP speaking routers. Preserving the integrity of the IP address allocation process means NOT penalizing folks who want to use the smallest possible block for their multihomed enterprise. We must recognize that the paradigm for multihomed sites has changed in the last two years, from just ISPs and extremely large enterprises, to smaller electronic commerce businesses. Internet access has gone from being a luxury, to being a utility. As a practical stand, almost every ISP that has space in the old Class B space, also has CIDR space where /24s are almost universally routed. So, the e-commerce concern can always ask for some of the latter. The question is, why draw the distinction at this point? Networks should aggregate as many routes as possible, of course, but why penalize folks who don't wish to be wedded to the outdated concept of a class b network block? It's not like we're using 2501s with 16MB anymore... -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel L. Golding * Senior Network Engineer Network Engineering * Mindspring Enterprises dgolding@mindspring.net * -------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
The memory for the routing tables was a deal just about 2 years ago; this became easier to maintain big tables today (when routers can be easily upgraded to 256 MB RAM). And from my point of view, the address space conservation is just much more important than preventing extra /19 or /20 routes to exist in the global Internet.
You surely use plenty of money to improve throughput, not the routing tables limits.
Alex.
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:19:14 -0800 From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> To: 'Randy Bush' <randy@psg.com>, 'Tony Li' <tony1@home.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason. This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site, with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations. Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way.
Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$) required to upgrade backbone routers.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM To: Tony Li Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
thanks geoff. :-)
and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check would have bounced!
randy
Aleksei Roudnev, (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/