From: Ben Butler (no email)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 07:08:37 EST
Hi,
Out of curiosity was the reasoning also to charge the PA who are
deagregating?
To restate there are 113,220 extra routes smaller than RIR minimums out
of the /24:126,450 in the table. The today reality seems to be that
113K of that 126K is probably being caused by existing networks
de-aggregating PA.
While I would I would agree that corporate multihoming with PI has a
huge potential problem on the table in terms of number of prefixes.
Further more as BGP skills are becoming more common place and
Linux/Quagga skills the barrier to entry for a corporate is reducing at
the same time their commercial reliance on and use of the Internet is
increasing.
Corporate multihoming - if permitted - has the inevitable consequence of
an extra prefix.
PA deagreagtion - has the avoidable consequence of lots of extra
prefixes.
I know who I would be charging first and maybe it would give the much
need incentive for them to clean house. We could then have some number
up to 113K new multihomed corporate before we got back to where we are
today in terms of route table size. An interesting question to gauge
the size of the corporate multihoming potential problem is to guess how
many there may be worldwide that would bother / try - I have no idea.
I believe (possibly wrongly) that IPv6 doesn't really have a solution
for multihoming corporate with multiple allocations and weird shims and
NAT configurations to get it to work - or have the RIRs decided on a
policy change yet and issuing PI blocks of IPv6 as well?
Am I correct on my interpretation of the numbers for PA:PI smaller
prefix origins?
Kind Regards
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of
William Herrin
Sent: 20 January 2008 11:06
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc:
Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and
terminology]
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough
> > numbers suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4
> > prefix in the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE) was then in the
> > neighborhood of $8000 USD per year.
>
> I haven't seen that work, but I am guessing this number is an
> aggregate (i.e. every cost to everyone on the 'Net combined), not per-
> network? See, I'm just looking at that TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR
> number and thinking to myself, "um, yeah, right". :)
Patrick,
That was a worldwide total, yes. The cost per prefix per router is
obviously only measured in cents per year.
You do know that Cisco's sales are north of $20B per year, right?
Juniper, which sells few products that aren't DFZ routers, also posts
annual revenues well north of $1B.
> Feel free to explain how confused I am. (But be warned, I am not
> going to believe it costs $2B/year to run a multi-homed network with
> two full feeds. :)
The thread started here:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008927.html
It was originally an argument of about the cost of doing PI for IPv6,
which according to Cisco product literature consumes twice the amount of
space in the FIB as routes for IPv4.
I encourage you to critique the numbers and then add them up for
yourself.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
-- William D. Herrin 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
|
|
|