Weekly Routing Table Report

Sat Aug 31 12:04:00 UTC 2019

Owen DeLong wrote:

> However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has
> few (if any) mergers involved:

I don't think so.

> AS6939 — 125 prefixes...

Are you spamming?

> Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with:
> 
> 2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48

If you are saying some merger happened before v6 transition,
which explains why there are less v6 prefix than v4, I can agree
with you.

But, so what?

>> Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
> 
> Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270
> prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4
> prefixes = 1250 prefixes.

The number of prefixes by swamp is recognized to be not a problem
even when we were discussing it in 1998 when there was only less
than 50000 prefixes.

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

> Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let's look at what
> is driving that increase in "multihoming"…

OK. You admit that the problem is caused by multihoming. OK.

>> I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
> 
> You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you
> want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24
> in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually
> advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give
> you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.

I don't think I need such chance as my argument is already good enough.

> While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending
> tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in
> a period where Moore's law is leveling off.

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

						Masataka Ohta