On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> >> On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>> >>> one of these curves is steeper than the other. >> >> That's what we wanted for the first one. >> >>> >>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step >>> >> >>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step >>> >>> If the slope on the second stays within some reasonable bounds of it's >>> current trajactory then everything's cool, you buy new routers on >>> schedule and the world moves on. The first one however will eventually >>> kill us. >> >> It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly around 120k >> prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as v4 did. >> > I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational planning, > few organizations should need to add more > prefixes annually, the way they had to in IPv4 due to scarcity based > allocation policies.
...which was, ultimately, a large part of the point of going to 128 bits. The most important one for networks. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
