On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Robin Whittle <r...@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> 1 - The unreasonable, arguably unscalable, burden placed on the > DFZ routers individually, and on the DFZ control plane in > general, by the set of end-user networks which currently > get portability, multihoming and inbound TE by the only > means available: getting their own space and advertising it > as PI prefixes in the DFZ. it's not just their own space, it's PA space as well, leaked around the provider, or through the provider. > > 2 - The much larger number of end-user networks which could use 2 > or more ISPs and which want or need portability, multihoming or > inbound TE but don't have it because they are unable to get the > space and advertise it. (Perhaps a subset of these could do > it, but don't because they known how unscalable it is.) I reckon most folks don't do it because they haven't hit a reason that they see to actually do it. If there were a scalable, simple method for most anything to be 'multihomed' I suspect you'd see a whole lot more multihoming going on (or mobility, or simple device/network agility) > Then there is mobility - which has a prominent place in the RRG > Charter's description of the routing scaling problem. Broadly > speaking, mobility is a whole other iceberg, so far completely submerged. providers see this in their own networks, but today the technology doesn't work/exist (no need to debate which) to have this work reliably and simply across provider boundaries, so it seems 'submerged'. > So even if Moore's Law keeps up in some acceptable manner with the > pace of growth in the number of PI prefixes in the DFZ, this doesn't > help with point 2 or with mobility. Tony's and VInce's work seems to say that moores law: 1) isn't going to cut it, 2) doesn't apply anyway... we should just drop this from the idea bench. -chris _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
