If IPv4 multihoming is leading to exponential growth of the routing
tables, maybe that's what will kill IPv4 and push people to IPv6. My
understanding is that in IPv6 things are better because, to some
extent, you can multihome by having multiple addresses assigned by
your different providers. Of course that can add a new exponentiality
based on your depth in the provider/sub-provder tree....
Donald
From: Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)telstra(_dot_)net>
Message-Id:
<4(_dot_)3(_dot_)2(_dot_)7(_dot_)2(_dot_)20000812070458(_dot_)00ae4860(_at_)jumble(_dot_)telstra(_dot_)net>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:11:49 +1000
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)RESEARCH(_dot_)ATT(_dot_)COM>
Cc: IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
In-Reply-To:
<20000810204045(_dot_)1AE7D35DC2(_at_)smb(_dot_)research(_dot_)att(_dot_)com>
At 04:40 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Look at it this way. We have about 75K routes in the "default-free
zone" now.
No - that was March 2000 - now we have about 87,000 (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp)
...
There are a number of scenarios which will make the routing system
crash and burn - this is one of them. On the other hand even doing
nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
the edges starts to be more and more common.
Geoff Huston