I've been mulling this over for days, and have concluded that
my only option is to abstain.

> A) "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
>     whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the 
>     DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable."
>     [  ]  YES
>     [  ]  NO

I regard it as quite plausible that if we do nothing (modulo
deploying IPv6) the BGP4 table size will eventually stabilise at
about 1 million entries, and it's very plausible that this will
not be a technological problem.

> B) "There is no reason to believe that a scalable solution for
>     site multi-homing will appear in the future so long as the 
>     Internet proceeds with current architectural approach to 
>     site multi-homing."
>     [  ]  YES
>     [  ]  NO

I can't say No to that, but I can't say Yes either, because
there is no issue unless the demand for multihoming expands
*disproportionately* to the general growth of the network. I
have no reason to believe that it will expand disproportionately.

Neither of these abstentions means that we shouldn't look for
a scalable solution, of course.

rrg mailing list

Reply via email to