[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

Dear Iljitsch,
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:10:29 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>Would you please invest some time into discovering how grownups use 
>email? The excessive funny interpunction hurts my eyes.
I would appreciate if you could stay with the subject and
don't put things on the personal level.

Doing so if arguments are missing is not a good idea.

And please keep in mind that at least I am not a native
English speaker.

>Whatever we do, we're not going to run out of IPv6 space.
Exact.

>Still, the routing table size problem is much more pressing than the 
>depletion problem in IPv6 because even if the table size isn't fatal, 
>it can get expensive easily, and when it gets fatal there is no way to 
>fix it (even if we give up autoconfiguration).
Stay with math: There are about 20K AS'es and much
less RIPE members.

Thus : How many prefixes will be out caused by the new policy ? ;-)

>I'm not sure what the cheapest router is that can handle a full table 
>today, but I'm pretty sure it's more expensive than what one that could 
>10 years ago cost then (ie a Cisco 2501).
The 2501 is for the museum.

Any 50$ EBay PC is capable of handling >>200K routes.

>Ah, but if you have N * 2 routing table entries, not only do you need 2 
>times the memory, but all else being equal you're going to see 2 times 
>as many updates, so assuming you need to search N * 2 entries before 
>you can update one (which fortunately isn't the case, the exact math is 
>left as an excercise to the reader) you need 2 * 2 = 4 times as much 
>memory bandwidth.

Believe me (we *developed our own BGP4 route server*
down to the BGP packet level):

Updates are not the problem on the memory bandwidth,
a typical DRAM doesn't care about 100K memory accesses.
We are talking of >>multiple GBit memory bandwidths.

A significant load on the CPU arises if the *whole table* is
dropped or rebuild due to some line going down or up.
Most of the CPU power is required for policy calculations.

However: At least our route server handles a complete 150K
table in less than 1 second with complex policies.

>I have no idea what you're talking about here.
At the end we are talking about a complex (NP) shortest
path problem which can't be solved by policies.

*There is no way* to avoid the any-network-structure
shortest-path calculation in a complex network.
Not by multiv6 and *not by any other approach*.
Routers can only be replaced by routers.

>I'm not sure how having a new techology available before the old 
>technology implodes is a problem.
If old technolgy means 10 year old 2501, then it is good when it
implodes and providers are forced to invest into state-of-the-art
hardware if they want to offer state-of-the-art services.

Noone is forced to offer IPv6 services and there will be
a very long transition period.

But we can't make the rules for the system of tommorow
based on limits imposed by technology of the day before
yesterday,

Best Regards
Oliver



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0