Tony, On 2008-09-19 05:22, Tony Li wrote: > More catch up... > > Brian wrote: > |I fully agree, and what I'm suggesting is that the (sad) history of > |the initial success of CIDR followed by the recent backsliding which > |I call "the PI heresy" shows us that economics will always > |tend to create > |a swamp, so we'd better engineer the system for a swamp. And > |in a swamp, > |any benefit from aggregation is both limited and unpredictable. (Would > |anybody like to predict the effect of the collapse of the US financial > |system on BGP4 aggregation two years from now?) > > > Do you really mean that? Are you really suggesting that we engineer routing > for 2^48 prefixes?
No. I still believe that the natural limit is somewhere around 10 million PI prefixes, or just conceivably 100 million, so my target range is 2^23 to 2^27. > > > |True. But that is, to use the technical term, a crap-shoot, just as > |BGP aggregation of adjoining PI prefixes is a crap-shoot. It will > |be the exception rather than the rule; that's the nature of a swamp. > |There are no natural economic forces that provide incentives for > |aggregation. > > > True. The alternative is for us to remove the incentives to deaggregate (as > best we can) and then to restrict things so that people can't hurt the > system. > > > |So I stick to my guns: we need to map the edge-swamp into a > |significantly > |smaller core-swamp, or nothing will change. Relying on aggregation at > |the edge hasn't worked for BGP, so why should it work for any form > |of EID/RLOC mapping (regardless of terminology)? > > > I'd argue that if there's a core swamp, you've already failed to scale. Well, yes, I'd rather see pure PA in the core, but I fear that ship has sailed. Brian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg