An informal survey... round II

Thu Aug 30 18:14:10 UTC 2007

John --

Great panic starting question.

I'd guess that by 2010, we'll be worried more about IPv6 growth than 
IPv4 growth but the archives will bite me in the you-know-where in 3 
years when I'm wrong (in either direction).

And then we'll talk about how fast FIBs get eaten with both IPv4 
(legacy) and IPv6 (new coolness) routes are in the same 
TCAMs/SRAMS/RLDRAM/whatever.

How many of us realistically believe that the core routers we install 
today will be in use (as such) in 3-4 years??? I can't think of a time 
in the last 12+ years that that has been a good bet.

Deepak

John Curran wrote:
> So with a fairly predictable growth of 3500 routes per month, we're
> going to have some issues with the current equipment out there
> (despite this being a rather predictable situation...)
> 
> So what might happen in three years if we have a sudden inflection
> in new routes per month due to use by major backbones of non-
> hierarchically allocated address space for new customer additions?
> I.E.  If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving
> new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller
> "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to
> 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
> 
> Is the equipment being installed *today* and over the next two
> years capable of sustaining 50K new routes per month, and if so,
> for how long?
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> At 4:47 AM +0000 8/30/07, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:48:43PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a few more months.  What are upgrade cycles like again?  How common
>>>> are the MSFC2s?
>>> I think we'll find out in a few months, when the "internet breaks" in a
>>> whole bunch of places where the admins aren't aware of this issue or
>>> operations have been downsized to the point that things are mostly on
>>> auto-pilot.  I'm guessing there are a good number of Sup2's in use, and
>>> that a good % of them think they're fine...as they have 512MB RAM and on
>>> the software based routers, that's plenty for current full BGP routes.
>> 	private replies suggest (w/ lots of handwaving) that perhaps 20-35%
>> 	of the forwarding engines in use might fit this catagory.
>>
>>> Anyone want to bet there will be people posting to nanog and cisco-nsp in
>>> a few months asking why either the CPU load on their Sup2's has suddenly
>>> shot up or why they keep noticing parts of the internet have gone
>>> unreachable?...oblivious to this thread.
>> 	that would be a sucker bet
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
>> --bill
> 
> 