Hi everyone,
Responding to multiple messages here:
On 2/6/11 10:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
>>> address allocation market.
>> Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a
>> given prefix, combined with IP
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Koch, Andrew wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Owen DeLong
>
>> That's as close as I think I can get to an IPv6 CIDR report
>> for the moment.
>
> Looks like Geoff has you already setup.
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/
>
> Andy Koch
Excellent, thank
> Right. That works great in an environment where the regulators require that
> every telco pay Neustar to maintain the LNP databases, and send all the
> updates promptly when a number is ported or disconnected.
>
> The telcos pay Neustar $300 million a year to run the database. I'm sure
> they'
>The way LNP works is a good example of PSTN style routing scaling. ...
>When a phone call is made, a TCAP query is launched by the originating
>switch to a set of STPs that then route it to an LNP database, that has
>a full list of every ported number, and its LRN, and a few other tidbits
>of
On 02/08/2011 11:01 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
They did indeed, but they did it by centrally precomputing and then
downloading centrally-built routing tables to each exchange, with
added statically-configured routing between telco provider domains,
and then doing step-by-step call setup, with add
On 07/02/11 14:25, Jamie Bowden wrote:
It would help if we weren't shipping the routing equivalent of the pre
DNS /etc/hosts all over the network (it's automated, but it's still the
equivalent). There has to be a better way to handle routing information
than what's currently being done. The old
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Owen DeLong
> That's as close as I think I can get to an IPv6 CIDR report
> for the moment.
Looks like Geoff has you already setup.
http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/
Andy Koch
If you look at Gert Doering's slides that I presented at NANOG (in the IPv6
Deployment Experiences track) I believe it is 1.4 prefixes per ASN in IPv6
and something like 10.5 prefixes per ASN in IPv4. There are also
descriptions of the reasons for some of these multiple advertisements in
IPv6 as
On Feb 7, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
> ...
>> On the other hand, when we can deprecate global routing of IPv4, we
>> will see an earth shattering improvement as the current 10:1 prefix
>> to provider ratio (300,000 prefixes
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
...
> On the other hand, when we can deprecate global routing of IPv4, we
> will see an earth shattering improvement as the current 10:1 prefix
> to provider ratio (300,000 prefixes for ~30,000 active ASNs) drops
> to something more like 2:1 in
On Feb 7, 2011, at 8:30 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
>> It would help if we weren't shipping the routing equivalent of the pre
>> DNS /etc/hosts all over the network (it's automated, but it's still the
>> equivalent). There has to be a better w
On 2/7/2011 10:30 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Ideas like LISP take the former approach. Ideas like SCTP and
Multipath TCP take the latter. The deployment prospects are not
promising.
I'm rusty on LISP, but I believe it was designed to solve the DFZ
problem itself, while SCTP and Multipath TCP
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> It would help if we weren't shipping the routing equivalent of the pre
> DNS /etc/hosts all over the network (it's automated, but it's still the
> equivalent). There has to be a better way to handle routing information
> than what's currently
s to be learned from there.
Jamie
-Original Message-
From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@istaff.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 11:00 AM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: What's really needed is a routing slot market (was: Using IPv6
withprefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN)
O
On 2/6/2011 3:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
I can imagine some technical backpressure, particularly against networks
that don't aggregate their routes, but money? Forget about it, unless
perhaps you want to mix them into the peering/transit negotiations.
On the other hand, the ESPN3 extortion work
>
>
> 1) You get a note from the owner of jidaw.com, a large ISP in Nigeria,
> telling you that they have two defaultless routers so they'd like a
> share of the route fees. Due to the well known fraud problem in
> Nigeria, please pay them into the company's account in the Channel
> Islands. What
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
>>> address allocation market.
>>
>> Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for
>> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
>> address allocation market.
>Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a
>given prefix, combined with IPv6 vast identifier space, could
>actually satisfy the primary goals that we hold for a long-term
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing
> table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use
> of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of
In this case the "victims"
On 2/6/11 9:32 AM, John Curran wrote:
> One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates
> backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities
> receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table
> slots.
>
> Note that our present system lacks both cons
On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing
> table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use
> of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of
> the slots that I need subtra
On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
>> address allocation market.
>
> Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a
> given prefix, combined with IPv
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
> address allocation market.
Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a
given prefix, combined with IPv6 vast identifier space, could actually
satisfy th
23 matches
Mail list logo