"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>> Michel Py wrote:
|>> PI = Does *NOT* scale.
|
|> Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> Please define "PI".
|
|ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.txt
This is a rather long document and I was hoping you would provide the part of
the definition that you are actually using. This document does claim that one
attribute of PI addresses is that they are expensive to route. If you are
relying on this as part of the definition then yes, your statement is a truism.
The trouble is that this document makes the same implicit assumptions that you
seem to be making.
|> Please define "scale".
|
|One billion end-sites. This is the baseline number for multihoming
|solutions. Smaller numbers have been deemed insufficient.
Quoting a number does not tell me what you mean by scale. For example, you
might say that you require the size of the core routing tables to be at worst
O(log) in the number of end sites. Or you might say that it has to be
O(constant). I might say that O(linear) is ok. Then we can talk about the
table growth versus the increases in hardware performance over time. You
are merely invoking a possible future endpoint that you think will have enough
shock value when compared to current hardware to make your point.
|One billion routes in the global routing table = does not scale.
This is the main fallacy in your statement. You are assuming that a billion
PI address blocks has to equate to a billion routes in some global routing
table (or even that there has to *be* a global table). That would be the case
only if we insist on remaining with a full-knowledge centralized routing model.
Such models are outdated. We can do better.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
