This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Heather Schiller
heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
Tue May 15 21:11:36 CEST 2007
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > [..] >> I simply take it as living proof that almost nobody really cares about seeing >> some (50..)70K+ routes more or less in their boxes, these days. > > See it is a business trick: when there are say 300k routes in the > routing tables, you are forcing your competition to also carry that > amount of routes in their tables, that means your competition will also I'm going to assume by "300k routes in the routing tables" that you are referring to the 'global internet routing table'. Well remember there are 2 routing tables, the 'global internet routing table' and a providers internal routing table.. You aggregate where you can and don't send internal routes to peers, only PI and routes that get leaked for multihoming/traffic engineering reasons. The larger the provider and the more fragmented their address space, the larger their internal routing table. So by the time the 'global internet routing table' reaches 300k routes, your largest transit providers will be well past 300k. > have to buy fast new cool routers with a lot of memory. This makes Does this go for folks who think PI is great too? I'd be happy to deggregate to everyone, and get this over with right now.. but something tells me that wouldn't last more than a few hours. I'm not interested in making the competition have to buy hardware too -- unless it pushes the vendors along to build new hardware. I just want a vendor to make something that can support all the routes and not have to replace it by the time we get it deployed. > various vendors happy, but it also takes care of emptying your > competitions pocket books. When they spend all their cash on routers, > they won't be able to invest in other things or need to up their prices, > resulting in those customers coming to you etc etc etc. Economics 101. > Has not much to do with "The Internet" any more. > > The road to monopoly has many routes ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen > > ############################################### # Heather Schiller # # Customer Security & IP Address Management # # 800.900.0241 # # security at mci.com # ###############################################
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]