Weekly Routing Table Report

Sat Aug 31 09:51:16 UTC 2019

Owen DeLong wrote:

> Consider, for example AS7922

COMCAST is not a good example.

> but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time.

No, if you know theory and practice of how additional address ranges
are allocated as a result of growth, you could have noticed that the
large number of prefixes of COMCAST should mostly be a result of
mergers, where merged parts won't renumber their hosts.

> That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in
> IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.

Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.

> Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the
> IPv4 routing table size.

The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion.

	http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html
	What is driving this recent change to exponential growth
	of the routing table?
	In a word, multi-homing.

>> With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M 
>> with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
> 
> I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for
> IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites
> in IPv6?

I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.

>> The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending.
> 
> People have been claiming that Moore's law is at an end longer than
> we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment.

I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology
trend.

						Masataka Ohta