-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for some vendors? I'm guessing that a certain vendor is going to see a huge number of orders for new equipment, for an event that could have been (and was) easily predicted... "Here, buy my widget... and then you'll come back in a few years and buy another one.. <mwahahahah>". Yup, folk purchasing these *should* have known (not like there was no discussions of this), but, well, not everyone spends all day reading NANOG / RIPE / CIDR report...
I am not an operator, but I used to be a *really* active routing engineer once upon a time in the stone age :-) and what really bothers me is the serious lack of general awareness on the issue of routing table size, aggregation, and stability, and what effect it has on the global Internet. Especially questions like this: "Is it time to switch to all IPv6 yet?" http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/08/13/0048244/the-ipv4-internet-hiccu... If anyone *seriously* believes that IPv6 will have any positive effect on this particular issue, you are sorely misinformed. If anything, it will make the problem worse, since the ability to "get aggregation wrong" will be much easier. I'm not being cynical, I'm being a realist. :-/ - - ferg p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this, but cannot find a reference at the moment.... - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlPrcJ8ACgkQKJasdVTchbINbAD9FKCQYHW2QTHrUB7NFOzJMpAx 9pbU7474w6CFgkCiBk0A/22u0wD5Mse0oMVCgcpBeopVq0SxChU1fkp9EUgk0+ZS =NCm3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----