What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size
Hey all, I'd like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table. I'd like to hear what people think is more important - and why - which it is more important - or a miz? IPv4 conservation - possibly allocating smaller default allocations - or making it easier (/24, /23) vs. The size or the routing table. If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes - what implications would this have on routers and so on. APNIC's minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24's) ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24's) RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24's) LANIC is a /21 (I think) AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24's) There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 - whether they need it or not. Thoughts? -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
i don't think its that cut/dried. it would be really interesting to know how many folks do -ZERO- aggregation, either on their own or proxy-aggregation - today, and how that number might change in the future. i'll posit that today it is nigh impossible to run aggregate-free. ... that ISPs aggregate so they can claim "default-free". i'll also note that there is zero functional difference btwn a /32 in either address family - as far as the FIB/RIB construction is concerned. i may also make the claim that it is going to be harder to stand behind the APNIC shield for defining ones prefix acceptance policy. ISPs are going to have to have the gonads to state which prefixes they prefer and which will get aggregated... regardless of APNIC (or RIR) delegation policy. Tell me why I am wrong. --bill On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:28:42AM +1000, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey all,
I'd like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table.
I'd like to hear what people think is more important - and why - which it is more important - or a miz?
IPv4 conservation - possibly allocating smaller default allocations - or making it easier (/24, /23)
vs.
The size or the routing table. If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes - what implications would this have on routers and so on.
APNIC's minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24's) ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24's) RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24's) LANIC is a /21 (I think) AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24's)
There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 - whether they need it or not.
Thoughts?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i don't think its that cut/dried.
it would be really interesting to know how many folks do -ZERO- aggregation, either on their own or proxy-aggregation - today, and how that number might change in the future.
i'll posit that today it is nigh impossible to run aggregate-free. ... that ISPs aggregate so they can claim "default-free".
i'll also note that there is zero functional difference btwn a /32 in either address family - as far as the FIB/RIB construction is concerned.
i may also make the claim that it is going to be harder to stand behind the APNIC shield for defining ones prefix acceptance policy. ISPs are going to have to have the gonads to state which prefixes they prefer and which will get aggregated... regardless of APNIC (or RIR) delegation policy.
Tell me why I am wrong.
--bill
You may have found it already, but Jeff Houston has done a little towards the aggregation wasters calculation. While its not exactly an indication of zero aggregation, it does show the ones that seem to be trying for it. http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#Gains http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/aggr.html AYJ
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:28:42AM +1000, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey all,
I'd like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table.
I'd like to hear what people think is more important - and why - which it is more important - or a miz?
IPv4 conservation - possibly allocating smaller default allocations - or making it easier (/24, /23)
vs.
The size or the routing table. If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes - what implications would this have on routers and so on.
APNIC's minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24's) ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24's) RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24's) LANIC is a /21 (I think) AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24's)
There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 - whether they need it or not.
Thoughts?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments a
r
e virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 07:13:51PM +1200, TreeNet Admin wrote:
bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i don't think its that cut/dried.
it would be really interesting to know how many folks do -ZERO- aggregation, either on their own or proxy-aggregation - today, and how that number might change in the future.
i'll posit that today it is nigh impossible to run aggregate-free. ... that ISPs aggregate so they can claim "default-free".
i'll also note that there is zero functional difference btwn a /32 in either address family - as far as the FIB/RIB construction is concerned.
i may also make the claim that it is going to be harder to stand behind the APNIC shield for defining ones prefix acceptance policy. ISPs are going to have to have the gonads to state which prefixes they prefer and which will get aggregated... regardless of APNIC (or RIR) delegation policy.
Tell me why I am wrong.
--bill
You may have found it already, but Jeff Houston has done a little towards the aggregation wasters calculation. While its not exactly an indication of zero aggregation, it does show the ones that seem to be trying for it.
http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#Gains http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/aggr.html
AYJ
yeah, I'm aware of Geoffs work... and it only tells what is announced not what is accepted. Geoff's analysis is biased toward more centralized aggregation - while I argue that the right tactic is to deaggregate the the announcements (always announce more specifics) and let the individual peer do the proxy aggregation on acceptance. just abt 180 off Geoffs biases. --bill
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:28:42AM +1000, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey all,
I'd like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table.
I'd like to hear what people think is more important - and why - which it is more important - or a miz?
IPv4 conservation - possibly allocating smaller default allocations - or making it easier (/24, /23)
vs.
The size or the routing table. If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes - what implications would this have on routers and so on.
APNIC's minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24's) ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24's) RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24's) LANIC is a /21 (I think) AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24's)
There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 - whether they need it or not.
Thoughts?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments a
r
e virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
I've got no standing as an operator to have an opinion on this. However, I have recently published a peer reviewed paper that looks at the history of BGP4 growth in a slightly new way. My conclusion is that the CIDR policy and the insistence on ISP-based aggregation of long prefixes was essential in keeping the growth of the BGP4 table under control over the last 14 years or so, and relaxing the pressure for aggregation would still be pretty dangerous. See the first paper listed at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/pubs.html That doesn't, strictly speaking, affect the question of what's the longest prefix that you accept, but the questions are linked. Regards Brian Carpenter University of Auckland On 2009-08-07 03:28, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey all,
I'd like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table.
I'd like to hear what people think is more important - and why - which it is more important - or a miz?
IPv4 conservation - possibly allocating smaller default allocations - or making it easier (/24, /23)
vs.
The size or the routing table. If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes - what implications would this have on routers and so on.
APNIC's minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24's) ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24's) RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24's) LANIC is a /21 (I think) AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24's)
There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 - whether they need it or not.
Thoughts?
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments a re virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 -- whether they need it or not.
A /22 is the same routing effort as a /24. So given that most are unlikely to need much more than a /23 I don't think it'll make a difference to the routing table size. In terms of using IPv4 up - given that I'm seeing ISPs with eyeballs being allocated large slabs of space (and I mean many multiples of /16s) the impact small hosting companies companies have as /22s or /24s is pretty trivial I'd expect. Look at the CIDR reports - have a look at the aggregation possible with some ISPs - clearly a few /24s vs /22s makes little difference in a world where even a small bit of aggregation by the top 10 deagg people would reduce the routing table size quite a bit. MMC
participants (5)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brian E Carpenter -
Matthew Moyle-Croft -
Skeeve Stevens -
TreeNet Admin