[rrg] solution strategies, nat?

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Tony Li <tony.li at tony.li> wrote:
> |>> We have determined beyond the shadow of a doubt
> |>> that the status quo is not, at this time, self-reducing.
> |>
> |> Under IRTF process rules, only the RG Chairs have the authority
> |> to make a consensus determination.
> |
> |That is an... interesting... refutation of established fact.
>
> I'm unaware of what established facts those might be.  Let me set forth the
> facts as I know them:
> The IRTF operates under the procedures documented in RFC 2014, and under the

Fellas,

Reality check!

The status quo is: the number of entries in the BGP table has
consistently grown and continues to grow year over year since BGP's
inception. See: http://bgp.potaroo.net/

Regardless of pronoun choice, no consensus call is necessary to cite
this well established fact. Had I overreached from this statement, you
might have cause to throw the rulebook at me. Since I didn't, you
don't.



> |To be clear what I'm thinking, it seems that if nothing new comes out
> |of the routing world, we'll eventually hit the wall where PI-style
> |multihoming cannot grow. Then economics will rule it out except for
> |very large customers.
>
> Or, in another form, the cost per global prefix will grow (in constant
> dollars).

Five bucks says the current trend is the opposite of this. If you
collect the cost data from yesteryear and apply the formula at
http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html I bet you find that the
cost per BGP prefix has been gradually falling for some time.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004