Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)

John Curran jcurran at
Thu Sep 26 15:07:03 UTC 2013

On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmanning at wrote:

> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...

If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with respect 
to routing table slots.  As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in the present
system, just conventions that are variably enforced depending on relative stature of 
the parties having the discussion.  Externalizing the true cost of having a prefix 
routed would create a more equitable and fair environment (i.e. knowledge that you 
could have any prefix globally routed for a fairly predictable cost, and ability to 
weigh the benefits of that versus taking a prefix from your ISP.)  It might even 
spur research into various interesting alternatives such routing costs for smaller 
scopes (regional, geographic, etc.) and cost implications and technical tradeoffs
from various alternative mobility schemes.

That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing routing costs would 
be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with various legal &
competitive aspects.  However, it would at least be doing something more than crossing 
our fingers and just hoping for the best out of today's "IPv6 prefixes for all"...  
Another benefit of such a system (for those fans of market-based approaches) is that 
we could better utilize IPv4, rather than the currently implied "/24 is routable, /25 
is not" filter-based approach which may not survive the market pressures associated 
with IPv4 depletion in any case...


Disclaimer:  My views alone.  Feel free to ignore this message as desired.

More information about the NANOG mailing list