nanog mailing list archives
RE: CIDR Report
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:48:56 -0700
Danny McPherson: Saturday, May 13, 2000 1:47 PMNone of these are big enough to justify their own backboneoperations or tobuy a backbone from someone else, or there wouldn't be aproblem. Paying scadsof extortion money is also problematic (cheaper to simplyburn the IP addresses).I am NOT advocating tossing all of that out. I am simplybringing up aproblem condition. Please, don't shoot the messenger, orotherwise getdefensive (return fire is a bitch).Nope, all of these are reasonable, the ones that aren't are, for example, where folks have a single connection, or multi-home only to a single provider.
Agreed, peering on a single connection is a canard. However, there is a cause/effect relationship with the latter. They can't multi-home to multiple providers because they aren't big enough (can't justify the cost). Which is precisely part of the problem that I am presenting here.
What I am bringing up here is that new, information-age companies, as predicted in MegaTrends over 10 years ago, are now starting to appear. They are very diffused (sparse population, over very large areas of the globe) and have connectivity needs which areboth critical,yet very different from click-n-morter customers that the Big8 was built up to handle (either classful or classless). Thecurrent architectureis not handeling them very well. The problem is currently in it's infancy, it will get much worse.I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Actually, I see reliability and availability feeding into all these other issues as well.
The reason this is an issue is exactly because they want reliability and availability, HA requirements.
It just that some of the folks advocating portability and deaggregation are using "route table size doesn't matter anymore" as an argument, when it absolutely does matter, especially if we plan to make the Internet more reliable, and less vulnerable.
I actually agree with you here as well. relying on infinite router table growth is not a scalable strategy. We need something else.
Current thread:
- Re: CIDR Report, (continued)
- Re: CIDR Report Christian Nielsen (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Vijay Gill (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Mark Kent (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Geoff Huston (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Jeremy Porter (May 14)
- RE: CIDR Report Owen DeLong (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Danny McPherson (May 13)
- RE: CIDR Report Roeland Meyer (E-mail) (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Randy Bush (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Danny McPherson (May 13)
- RE: CIDR Report Roeland M.J. Meyer (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report ww (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Joe Provo - Network Architect (May 14)
- Re: CIDR Report Chris Williams (May 15)
- Re: CIDR Report Adrian Chadd (May 15)
- Re: CIDR Report Chris Williams (May 15)
- RE: CIDR Report Bradly Walters (May 15)
- Re: CIDR Report Chris Williams (May 15)
- RE: CIDR Report Roeland M.J. Meyer (May 13)
- Re: CIDR Report Christian Nielsen (May 13)
- RE: CIDR Report Roeland M.J. Meyer (May 14)