On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>> not need that info, but the edge likely does, yes? Have 100g customers
>> today? planning on having them in the next ~8/12/18 months?
>
> If you did your purchasing the way Bill
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> not everyone drinks the mpls koolaide... so it's not always 'just a
> label switch' and depending upon how large your PE mesh is, there are
If it isn't just a label switch, then features can (and sometimes do)
drive upgrades (therefore
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>> there's probably a different need in TOR and BO/SOHO locations than
>> core devices, eh?
>
> In today's backbone, this is certainly true. Feature-driven upgrades
> shouldn't be
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> there's probably a different need in TOR and BO/SOHO locations than
> core devices, eh?
In today's backbone, this is certainly true. Feature-driven upgrades
shouldn't be much of a factor for "P boxes" today, because modern
networks hav
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> That must be my mistake then, because I thought the exercise was
>> building it in a way that it stays built for the maximum practical
>> number of years. When it has to be touched aga
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> That must be my mistake then, because I thought the exercise was
> building it in a way that it stays built for the maximum practical
> number of years. When it has to be touched again (or tweaked if it
So when you upgrade a device, you alw
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 3/12/11 5:00 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> I'll be
>> convinced it can be done for less than 2x cost when someone actually
>> does it for less than 2x cost.
>
> part of the exercise is neither building nor buying the capacity before
> you ne
On 3/12/11 5:00 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> I'm super-tired of the "but tcams are an expensive
>> non-commodity part not subject to economies of scale". this
>> has been repeated ad nauseam since the raws workshop if not before.
>>
>> You don
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 08:00 -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> You're either building a bunch of big TCAMs or a radix trie engine
> with sufficient parallelism to get the same aggregate lookup rate. If
> there's a materially different 3rd way to build a FIB, one that works
> at least as well, feel fre
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> I'm super-tired of the "but tcams are an expensive
>non-commodity part not subject to economies of scale". this
>has been repeated ad nauseam since the raws workshop if not before.
>
> You don't have to build a lookup engine around a tcam and
I'm super-tired of the "but tcams are an expensive non-commodity part not
subject to economies of scale". this has been repeated ad nauseam since the
raws workshop if not before.
You don't have to build a lookup engine around a tcam and in fact you can use
less power doing so even though you ne
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Finally, get mad at your respective router manufacturers for
>> engineering obsolescence into their product line by declining to give
>> you the option.
>>
> The option of $60,000 line cards
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:32 -0500, John Curran wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
I suspect that as we reach exhaustion, more people will be
force
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:32 -0500, John Curran wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
>> > I suspect that as we reach exhaustion, more people will be
>> > forced to break space out of their provider's v4 aggregates, a
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:32 -0500, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
> >> destinations out there that multi-homed enter
> The implication of this statement would seem to be that the reason the
> routing tables are growing is due primarily to allocations and not
> deaggregation (e.g., for traffic engineering). Does anyone have any
> actual data to corroborate or refute this?
Luca Cittadini, Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Stev
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=6058676534328717115
@article{cittadini2010evolution,
title={{Evolution of Internet Address Space Deaggregation: Myths and
Reality}},
author={Cittadini, L. and Muhlbauer, W. and Uhlig, S. and Bush, R. and
Fran{\c{c}}ois, P
On Mar 9, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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 s
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong 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
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%2fb
> the last serious satainc phylters died in 2001. sales&marketing
> pressure. when eyecandy.com is behind a /27, or your s&m folk
> sell to weenie.foo who wants you to announce their /26, it will be
> the end of the /24 barrier.
Sure, you can sell to someone who wants to announce a /26 and you c
On 3/9/11 1:55 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> 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%20
On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
>> destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
>> dual-stack backbones will announce teen
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
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
one of these curves is steeper than the other.
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-
> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>
> 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=%2f
On 3/9/11 12:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
>>> v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
>>> onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
>>> nat64.
>> that teenie bit better be part of
>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
>> v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
>> onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
>> nat64.
> that teenie bit better be part of a larger aggregate that can reach at
> lea
> From: Randy Bush
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 7:44 PM
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the
> future
>
> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
> destin
btw, this discussion should not forget that the load on routers is churn
and number of paths, not just prefix count.
randy
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
last allocations being seen in the remaining RIR "normal allocations"
would be smaller than before plus de-aggregation of space as people
"sell" or "lease" subspace of their allocations.
You have
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
> destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
> dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can nat64.
I'll take this
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You have ignored the probability of disaggregation due to IP trading markets,
> especially
> given the wild-west nature of the APNIC transfer policy.
>
> Many of the legacy blocks will get dramatically disaggregated in the likely
> market whic
You have ignored the probability of disaggregation due to IP trading markets,
especially
given the wild-west nature of the APNIC transfer policy.
Many of the legacy blocks will get dramatically disaggregated in the likely
market which
could take the DFZ well beyond 500k routes.
It will be very
On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> My guess therefore is a peak around 450-500k IPv4 DFZ routes and that this
> would happen in around 3-5 years. I wanted to record this for posterity.
>
> What is your guess, any why?
I think it'll end up around the same range, mostly due
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> We had an interesting discussion the other day at work. We were speculating
> on how many DFZ IPv4 routes there would be at peak in the future before it
> starts to decline again due to less IPv4 usage.
> My guess therefore is a peak aro
i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can nat64.
randy
Hi.
We had an interesting discussion the other day at work. We were
speculating on how many DFZ IPv4 routes there would be at peak in the
future before it starts to decline again due to less IPv4 usage. The
current number is around 350k, and my personal estimation is that it would
grow by at
38 matches
Mail list logo
