[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy

On Thursday 24 March 2005 21:54, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:47:12PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that they are PI in disguise. But they are still a way of
> > saying to general end users that there's no such thing as PI space - by
> > general end users, I mean corporations not people like TLD (or ccTLD)
> > operators (they should know full well what's what). Or are we just going
> > to say, if you can create a good enough case then PI exists - come and
> > get it.
>
> PI will come or IPv6 not fly. Face it.
>
> > If we (as in RIPE) are going to start handing out longer than /32's
> > then all the RIR's have to make it abundantly clear that they don't
> > support the idea of /32 filters
>
> ARIN and LACNIC already do. RIPE (not NCC) folks are still trying to
> make policy around people's failure to properly maintain filters. It's
> like capitulating before the battle even started (looking at actual
> deployment out there, the few who don't get it [filtering] will learn
> it the hard way later).
>
> > or should they (RIR's) make allocations/assignments (call them what
> > you will) from a global pool for these micro allocations and everyone
> > then shouts about how this specific /32 shouldn't be filtered.
>
> Yes.
>
> ARIN:   http://www.arin.net/registration/ipv6/micro_alloc.html
>         (2001:0500::/29)
> LACNIC: http://lacnic.net/en/registro/index.html
>         "IPv6: 2001:1200::/23 (minimum allocation /48)"
>         "NAPs/IXP in the region: [...] 2001:12f8::/32"
>
> So basically you have to (judging from above statement) expect valid /48
> announcements from whole LACNIC space.
>
> And from ARIN space within 2001:500::/29.
>
> > How soon do we think the routing tables are going to become
> > unmanageable (and I mean unmanageable by the routers themselves) ??
> > 3 years, 5 years ??
>
> Can you give some well-funded projection, or just hand-waving FUD?

I can't give any projections - That's why I asked :)
I'm sure someone could work out given the current growth rate, how long it 
would take to cripple todays routers.

> > > Perhaps we ought to be asking the people who design/build the routers 
> > what they think their kit will be capable of by then.
>
> They say that they test their RPs for 1 million RIB routes since years.
> Not the (then) high-end gear you have bought ten years ago, or even only
> a few years ago where you may have made questionable and/or short-sighted
> purchase decisions.
>
> > We have seen large increases (in % terms) of what routers can now do
> > compared to 5 years ago, what's to say we're not going to see even
> > bigger % increases over the next 5 years.
>
> We don't need. We don't even push (good) 5-year old gear to the limits
> with today's IPv4 junk DFZ RIB. Give every IPv6 ASN a prefix to announce
> and we'll add about 10-15% to this RIB. Big deal? I strongly disagree.
>

We don't push them now ?? - even the big guys ??
If even they don't push their routers hard, then even with phenomenal growth 
over the next 5 years or so then what ever the current routers are then will 
probably be able to cope.
If the routers can cope then the size of the routing table becomes a non issue 
- that's what I'm trying to say.

Jon