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

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 11:48:06 CST 2011


On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>>       That's what we wanted for the first one.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>       It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly around 120k prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as v4 did.
>>
> I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational planning, few organizations should need to add more
> prefixes annually, the way they had to in IPv4 due to scarcity based allocation policies.

...which was, ultimately, a large part of the point of going to 128
bits.  The most important one for networks.

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com




More information about the NANOG mailing list