From: Mark Newton (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 10:20:49 EST
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how
> >to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes... I'm not sure we'll be there for a
> >few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs
> >to figure out what the Internet is going to look like at that point.
>
> It won't look good. ISPs will have to buy much more expensive
> routers. At some point, people will start to filter out routes that
> they feel they can live without and universal reachability will be a
> thing of the past.
But don't we filter out routes we feel we can live without *right now*
without the world ending?
I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to
universal reachability.
What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than
a /18"?
- mark
-- Mark Newton Email: (W) Network Engineer Email: (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
|
|
|