NANOG 40 agenda posted
don at calis.blacksun.org
Sat Jun 2 21:07:17 UTC 2007
> [Update to earlier stats: The current v4 prefix/AS ratio is 8.7.
> However, there are ~11k ASes only announcing a single v4 route, so that means
> the other ~14k ASes are at a v4 ratio of 14.3. In contrast, the current v6
> ratio is 1.1 and the deaggregate rate is 1.2%.]
This is more than a little frightening :(
> The simplistic answer is that nearly all assigned/allocated blocks will be
> minimum-sized, which means ISPs will be capable of filtering deaggregates if
> they wish. Some folks have proposed allowing a few extra bits for routes
> with short AS_PATHs to allow TE to extend a few ASes away without impacting
> the entire community.
This is an excellent solution- is there some reason people wouldn't want
to implement it? It would seem to lead directly to a more heirarchical
> justification for larger-than-minimum blocks. OTOH, the community may see
> how small the v6 table is and decide that N bits of deaggregation wouldn't
> hurt. After all, with ~25k ASes today, and router vendors claiming to be
> able to handle 1M+ routes, it seems we could tolerate up to 5 bits of
> deaggregation -- and 3 bits would leave us with a table smaller than v4 has
Combine this with the above system. Allow 2 bits of deagg anywhere but up
to 4 bits for a short as_path for networks in the /48 range. Allow 3 bits
for networks in the /32 range and up to 5 bits for a short as_path.
(or whatever other numbers make sense).
Either way we seem to be looking at a much smaller table as long as we
decide on some sensible rules and actually stick to them. That is going
to be the biggest problem though.
More information about the NANOG