[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

Michel,

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Michel Py <
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> I hate to sound brutal, but why should I believe that you
> >> will find the Holy Grail that everyone else has been searching
> >> for over the last 15 years? I heard it all, I wrote part of it.
> >> There is NO solution to make renumbering easy and there is NO
> >> solution nearly as good as PI for multihoming.
>
> > Bill Manning wrote:
> > DFZ slots are for those who pay for them...
>
> This is not the way I see it. Paying for DFZ slots is embedded in "cost
> of doing business" for large / T1 ISPs, and in the recurring charges
> they charge to smaller ISPs or customers. If there was a monetary value,
> it would be relatively easy to collect a fee based on the number of
> prefixes announced upstream. I do not see that happening.
>
> It's all about money. The collective cost of announcing a prefix in the
> DFZ is less than the collective cost of having a complex and impossible
> to troubleshoot multihoming mechanism based on PA. As long as a DFZ slot
> does not cost $100 or $1000 a month, organizations will not go for a
> more complex mechanism. We are several orders of magnitude below the
> cost threshold.
>

I would like to see your calculation. How many line cards have you included?

My rough estimation would be about 300 000 line cards today, but is is realy
rough, actually I guessed on the AS numbers, multiplied by a not to high
constant.

DFZ slots must include not only the routers, but the cost of the slowing
down of the convergence.

This is an issue for all of us.

Unfortunately the shortage of the IPv4 space will increase the DFZ already
at the IPv4 level. Let us not to create more burden at this stage of the
transition.

Géza

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111001/728c54d1/attachment.html>