Hi Paul, > Well, let's look at the flip-side for a moment. Imagine if there were > /no/ growth in prefixes. Is that good? I think the answer clearly is > "no". No growth in prefixes implies no growth in the internet, > implies no growth in revenue for those who make money from activities > associated with attaching to the net.
Actually, no growth in prefixes does not imply that there is no growth in the Internet. You can still add customers within existing prefix allocations and improve your addressing efficiency. Also, since you can grow the net very efficiently with even a tiny amount of prefix additions, it would seem like much, much, much slower growth would be acceptable to meet your reasonable request that the Internet keep growing. > Let the data do the arguing. At the moment it's looking like BGP > maybe is coping with growth just fine. I.e. we can not yet safely > conclude there is an urgent scaling problem with internet routing > (despite path-vector being known now to have some inefficient > behaviours even when working as intended). First, no one is claiming that there is an imminent and urgent problem. What I feel that we've shown is that we have a long term systemic problem. Given that truly dealing with this issue does appear to require major amounts of time to deploy, it only seems reasonable to start dealing with it long before it becomes an urgent problem. > Where's the data suggesting routing is or is going to run into > problems? Not /fears/ that it will, but actual data. Please see my RAWS presentation. It shows that prefix growth exceeds the speedup that we can expect in DRAM. This in turn implies that BGP will take longer to converge at a given node when that node has to process the full table. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
