nanog mailing list archives

RE: CIDR Report


From: owen () dixon delong sj ca us (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 11:06:57 -0700



I've mentioned this before, so I'll just note it lightly.
There are a growing number of companies (dot-coms are only one of them) that have small head-count (<4000), but are 
spread out from Sydney to New York, with many "lone eagles" in the MST zone. They could probably do everything on a 
portable /24. However, with everyone filtering out announcements less than /20, such companies are encouraged to drop 
NAT, and use other methods to justify a /19, just so they can participate in peering (I won't say whom, one is a CTI 
development company). The VPN solution is cute, but the entire VP then becomes single-homed, at the VPN gateway (The 
alternative is that each location gets their own /24, linked by a VPN, to the other /24s, there are serious 
performance issues with this approach and hte /24 may only represent a single actual user). All of this burns IP 
addresses. 

Or you build a VPN with multiple gateways, and accept the consequences when a gateway
drops and you are rerouted to another gateway.  This is usually rare, and most
users will retry their HTTP request or other session at least once before calling
for assistance.  It's not pretty, but it is feasible.

(Each gateway has it's own NAT pool that it exchanges with the world.  Each office
on the VPN is dynamically routed to the closest gateway.)

The point: Filtering BGP announcements costs in IP space allocations. There is a mathmatical relationship between IP 
address allocations, table sizes, and routing policies. Also, part of the relationship is determined by client 
business requirements.

Organizations are becomeing more geophysically diffused, with many end-nodes actually participating in multiple 
organizations. This is only starting now (I still see over 100K nodes actually doing this), it will get much worse.

Yes, that is true.  I think the long term solution is bigger routing tables with
faster lookups and longer prefixes.  CIDR was a hack to get us through a time
when router memory and speed constraints were creating serious problems in
routing the global internet.  I believe this problem is mostly solved, and that
modern routers are capable of handling a much larger routing table.  As such,
I think the need for optimization has shifted to IP space utilization and topological
efficiency.  Deaggregating routes to be able to use effective MEDs would also
benefit from this going forward.

I know this doesn't fit with Randy's religion, but it's not the first time I
have disagreed with Randy.

Owen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 2:10 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: CIDR Report



On Sat, 13 May 2000 pjnesser () Nesser COM wrote:

But if you look at the last 250 days or so you see that the 
table has
grown by more than 16k routes.  So we are seeing growth at 
300% of what we
saw for the last 5 plus years.  It also looks annoyingly 
geometric or
perhaps exponential, instead of the nice linear growth 
since CIDR was
introduced.  

If you just check from 01/01/99 to date then it looks linear 
or at least
close to linear.
 
I guess it *could* be that growing amount of new companies getting
internet access is increasing. Is there any data that show "CIDR GAIN"
from the cidr report, so we can see if the increase corresponds to an
increase in (perhaps unneccessary) smaller announcements in 
larger blocks,
or if it is actually just a lot more blocks allocated that needs to be
routed. Any stats on arin/ripe/apnic new allocations of 
blocks in the same
timeframe? Both in terms of IP adresses and in number of blocks of IP
adresses. This would also give us some kind of hint as to 
when IPv4 space
will be exhausted (or are there already projections about this?)

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se







Current thread: