[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Randy Bush wrote:

>> My understanding is that routing table growth is largely fueled by
>> traffic engineering rather than multihoming.
>
> got cites?

I think the routing table report "aggregation ratio" shows some of this. 
It might also be incompetence rather than intentional traffic engineering, 
that is fueling the growth.

I know people who deaggregate their /19 into /24s and announce it to all 
their providers, because they have one per city and if that city is 
isolated, it still has connectivity even if their internal network is 
partitioned. If this should be called "traffic engineering" or not is 
debatable.

>From the routing table report:

BGP routing table entries examined:                              361681
     Prefixes after maximum aggregation:                          164222

I don't have figures showing these metrics over time, but I feel that 
de-aggregation ratio has increased, but not hugely.

As long as announcing routes to the DFZ doesn't incur a cost per route, 
we're going to see the current situation continue, I guess. Luckily it 
seems core routing platforms keep up with the growth, even though 
platforms need to be upgraded prematurely due to them not being able to 
handle the current DFZ size.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se