[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

Hello Wilfried,

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet <
Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:

> Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> [...]
> > So the hardwired limit of 0.5M IPv4 routes and 0.25k IPv6 does not allow
> a
> > few hundred thousands more IPv6 routes at all (not even would allow an
> 0.25M
> > IPv6 limit) -- and speed of processing is an other issue...
>
> Even right now a large proportion of the router boxes on the Internet are
> *not* capable of dealing with the full routing table in the DFZ. This has
> been the case for many years already, btw. Still the 'net was and is pretty
> healthy and packets get shipped to the correct destination.
>


Well, what you say is true, however, it is easy to interpret it in a wrong
way.

What I says: before accepteng a "principle", or policy, we should be able to
understand, at least roughly, the financial consequences. I also says, that
I seriously doubt that the PI space allocation should be "liberized" in
order to push through the IPv6 deployment.

The first real question, what will be, or might be the consequence if DFZ
routing table growth further significantly. Please keep in your calculation
that an IPv6 entry need twice as much address space in the routing table
than an IPv4 entries.

The conseqences are two folds: SLOW DOWN in the routing and forced upgrade
of ALL routing cards that are able to support "only" 0,5M IPv4 routing
entries AND are involved in DFZ zone handling.

I think, it would be crucial to know how many router cards would be included
in the Internet today. I made a very a rough estimation: 300 000 cards. Of
course, there are much more cards in the backbones.

May be I am wrong, however, please do not neglect this issue.

Let's clarify first: roughly how many router cards MUST be upgraded if the
typical 0,5M limit reached (counting twice en IPv6 enty).

 In parallel, we should better understand the slow-down consequences as
well.


> [...]
>
> > Strict limits must be kept.
>

The above mentionned limits are the strict limits, not to forget.

http://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/routing-2011

The picture of Geoff Huston shows that we are getting too close to the
typical existing limits.


> I still believe that it is the ISPs' job to manage the DFZ and to decide
> which
> prefixes to accept - or maybe not. I am pretty sure that the PI address
> blocks
> are taken from a well-documented space, so it is up to the (individual)
> ISP(s)
> to manage their routing environment.
>

NO, we should not dreams about policy blindly and we should not separate our
knowledge and question marks.


> I do not see a mandate for the policy and/or the NCC to prohibit a (maybe
> small)
> number of participants from doing "the right thing" - from their point of
> view.
>

We are responsible for the problems provoked by the grows of the Internet.

>
> In the very end, the money that keeps the IPSs going and earning money is
> coming
> from customers, isn't it? :-)
>

Well, this statement might be read that my approach is not customer oriented
enough. In opposite, it is. I do not want to suggest "solutions" for
customers that would slow down the Internet and increase seriously the price
of the service if these "solutions" would not be used just in very
exeptional case.

Slowing down the internet is not customer freindly at all. Increasing the
service price would be?

I am pretty sure that IPv6 PI space needed only in very exeptional cases,
and I also pretty sure that we MUST say this to everybody clearly and
without delay.

Your freind since 20 years,

Géza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111004/4331c3bf/attachment.html>