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/[email protected]/
5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Previous message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Next message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at karoshi.com
bmanning at karoshi.com
Wed May 30 18:01:32 CEST 2007
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:03:52AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> writes: > > > Today we think of a 5,000,000 prefix Internet as an impossibility. > > No hardware could ever do that. However, 20 years on I'm not sure > > a 5 million route Internet will be surprising to anyone. > > Who is the "we" you refer to above/ > > Actually, quite a few people are worried that a 5M prefix Internet is > a possibility. There are also debates (i.e., no consensus) that when > that happens, routers will actually be able to cope with the load in > practice. > hum... given that w/ a /32 "boundary" - there exists the possibility of 2x32 routing table entries... clearly the /32 boundary is not to preserve routing table slots. if one is seriously considering a 1-5m entry routing table then it becomes important to (proxy) aggregate to the /8 or /9 level to keep within the 1 to 5m entries. --bill
- Previous message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
- Next message (by thread): 5M prefixes in the core [was: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again ]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]