On 03/21/2013 04:11 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > Chris, > >> ...most likely you are not... I think I jump to 'CA == REPO == >> AS-Operator == ASN allocated' because lacking any direct data >> otherwise it seems like a good estimation of numbers. Essentially each >> ASN allocated is going to be a repository that needs to be gathered, >> right? If there are 10% more repositories due to EndSite allocations >> without an ASN also allocated to them I think it's still in the >> ballpark to say "number of Repos == ASN allocation number". >> >> I could be wrong. >> > So far the 1,300+ folks who have signed up for managed CA services have > also > let the RIRs manage their pub points, which dramatically reduces the > number of repositories. That could change over time, e.g., if these
TODAY it reduces the number, yes. 100% agree. TOMORROW the number of repositories, even those which are 'hosted' will be split up by name and/or ip-address... I have a feeling these will be like DNS servers and likely ripe (ha!) points for attack by bad folks. So sharing fate for all customers just seems like a bad idea. > folks become unhappy with the repository management, but for now I think > it is reasonable to assume a much smaller number of repositories, which > is what Sriram and I did in our model. yup. but having the ability to increase the number of repositories in the model means we can say: "today with N repositories and M objects we see times of Y. Tomorrow when we have X repositories with Y objects we should see times of Z" -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
