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/
[address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Fri Jul 1 13:55:46 CEST 2011
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 20k isn't a problem, 100k isn't really a problem, potentially 5M 30 > years down the line might be a problem, 50M is most likely a problem. The problem is on prefix length over which backbone routers must take care of. 16M is not a problem if they are confined within /24. However, 5M scattered in /28 might be a problem. > The real solution is to have end systems handle session handover between > multiple addresses it has, but there seems to be pitifully little > traction for that. Yes, that is the real problem. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]