estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Wed Mar 9 10:51:08 CST 2011


On 3/9/11 1:55 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
>>
>>
>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
>>
>>
>> If the slope on the second stays within some reasonable bounds of it's
>> current trajactory then everything's cool, you buy new routers on
>> schedule and the world moves on. The first one however will eventually
>> kill us.
> 
> A valid comparison really needs to use the same vertical scale.  That
> first is only 2300 new entries in the last 12 months.  The other is
> 35000 new entries in the same period.

No it doesn't. I'm more concerned about the percentage rather than
absolute numbers and one of these things is doubling annually. I'll go
out on a limb and say I need 150k ipv6 routes in gear that's supposed to
last to 2016.

joel

> Antonio Querubin
> e-mail/xmpp:  tony at lava.net
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list