From: Donald Stahl (no email)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2007 - 17:07:17 EDT
> [Update to earlier stats: The current v4 prefix/AS ratio is 8.7.
> However, there are ~11k ASes only announcing a single v4 route, so that means
> the other ~14k ASes are at a v4 ratio of 14.3. In contrast, the current v6
> ratio is 1.1 and the deaggregate rate is 1.2%.]
This is more than a little frightening :(
> The simplistic answer is that nearly all assigned/allocated blocks will be
> minimum-sized, which means ISPs will be capable of filtering deaggregates if
> they wish. Some folks have proposed allowing a few extra bits for routes
> with short AS_PATHs to allow TE to extend a few ASes away without impacting
> the entire community.
This is an excellent solution- is there some reason people wouldn't want
to implement it? It would seem to lead directly to a more heirarchical
table.
> justification for larger-than-minimum blocks. OTOH, the community may see
> how small the v6 table is and decide that N bits of deaggregation wouldn't
> hurt. After all, with ~25k ASes today, and router vendors claiming to be
> able to handle 1M+ routes, it seems we could tolerate up to 5 bits of
> deaggregation -- and 3 bits would leave us with a table smaller than v4 has
> today.
Combine this with the above system. Allow 2 bits of deagg anywhere but up
to 4 bits for a short as_path for networks in the /48 range. Allow 3 bits
for networks in the /32 range and up to 5 bits for a short as_path.
(or whatever other numbers make sense).
Either way we seem to be looking at a much smaller table as long as we
decide on some sensible rules and actually stick to them. That is going
to be the biggest problem though.
-Don
|
|
|