I may be missing something, but it seems like the driver for such
disaggregation in v4 would be more obvious with some of the
map-and-encaps than with the current architecture.
Once things are worth money, residential and SOHO folks be NATed. I
don't like it, but that simply seems to be inevitable. Hence they will
not be contributing disaggregated prefixes into teh pool.
In fact, as far as I can tell, anyone who is NATed can happily be
aggregated (because the NAT will take care of renumbering / isolation
issues for the customer.)
Folks who need to host a small number of servers might be able to get by
with a very long prefix, but no one else could. They either need more
addresses, or none.
Again, if we assume economics is kicking in, it would seem that using
hosting providers, who get benefits of scale, would be more cost
effective than trying to host servers using very long prefixes, for
which you pay money.
No, I can not prove any of that analysis.
And all other things being equal, I would prefer a solution taht
addresses IPv4.
What I don't want to do is rule out good architectural solutions because
they only address IPv6.
(One path would be to figure out what we think the right answer looks
like. Then figure out if it applies to IPv4. AIf not, we can figure
out what reasonable paths we ought to explore in case Chris is right and
the v4 economics actually drive an explosion in disaggregated prefixes.)
Yours,
Joel
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Dale W. Carder <[email protected]> wrote:
Joel, in (msg05925), you wrote:
The IPv4 Internet works. The routers, and the routing system, cope
with the current pressures. To my way of looking at things, the
question is how will the Internet routing system cope with growth.
But, definitionally, there really is not that much growth left in
IPv4.
As an operator, I would agree with this, but I fear it only to be
true until prefixes start having substantial resale value. At that
point, slicing and dicing would really begin once the money starts
flowing.
I think it's not just 'for sale' but 'gosh /24 really isn't the limit
is it? lets start accepting and passing on /25../26../27...etc' Sure
it's not going to get to Avagadro's number of prefixes in v4, but 3B
is still way more than 2M (which is about where current vendors stop
hedging today).
In the end, ipv4 can get larger than current platforms can handle,
quickly, and future planned platforms as well. It seems that the same
problem exists regardless of protocol#.
The RIR's appear to me to be gearing up for this to some degree.
yes.
-chris
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
