Date: 29 Sep 2001 12:39:27 -0700 From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
[ snip ]
anyone who wants the point of equilibrium to move in the direction of "more routes" should be attacking the economies
"More routes" is too simplistic, at least for the "near future". "A greater number of useful routes" is what I think people are supporting. Given your point about many companies wanting to multihome, I agree that we can easily exceed 1M routes. See suggestion #3 below. Of course, there are screwballs such as someone who comes to mind who _claims_ OC-48 connectivity (not colo's bandwidth, but their own OC-48 line)... yet is single-homed. Supposedly they are so happy with their upstream that they have no desire to multihome. Frankly, I'd rather have tons of OC-3 to diverse backbones, but my point is that not everyone wants to multihome. How many _should_ want to? Most everyone. How _many_ do? I don't have the answer.
which give rise to the problem rather than attacking the engineering solutions which are the best current known answer to the problem. in other words go tell cisco/juniper/whomever your cool idea for a new routing protocol / route processing engine / cheap OC768-capable backplane and maybe they'll hire you to build it for them.
1. PI microallocations (e.g. /24) aligned on /19 (for example) boundaries. Need more space? Grow the subnet. One advert because IP space is contiguous. Cost: Change of policy at RIRs. 2. Responsibility for spam finds it way to the originating network. Why not filtering and aggregation? (No flame wars please... mention of spam is an analogy, not a desire to bring back certain flame wars after such a short while.) Cost: Individual responsibility and interacting with adjacent ASNs. 3. I'd suggest merging "best" routes according to next-hop, but the CPU load would probably be a snag. Flapping would definitely be a PITA, as it would involve agg/de-agg of netblocks. Maybe have a waiting period before agg/de-agg when a route changes... after said wait (which should be longer than the amount of time required to damp said route), proceed with netblock consolidation. I'm mulling some refinements to this, which I'll bring up if the discussion takes off. (Good idea, bad idea, flame war, I really don't care... if we eventually make progress, that's what counts.) Cost: Anyone care to estimate the resources required? Any good algorithms for merging subnets? Feel free to flame me for any oversights. <excuse>I'm attempting to multitask</excuse> and am well aware that I may have omitted something. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.